The Myth of Mega Mysticism: Appendix B A Discussion Regarding the Claim that the Spirit Reveals Extra-biblical Information to the Believer

A Discussion Regarding the Claim that the Spirit Reveals Extra-biblical Information to the Believer

Kurt Jurgensmeier

Sometime ago I wrote some concerns regarding Chris Martin’s GCLI paper in 2006 and with Dave Bovenmyer’s teaching at the 2011 Faithwalkers. Both taught on how God speaks to us apart from Scripture.

Recently, Dave responded to those concerns, which are in bold type below. I really appreciate the time and thought he invested in this, and it helped me clarify some of my own thoughts.

Since then I have written a book on this topic which is referenced throughout my responses below. The book or portions are available electronically at http://trainingtimothys.org/books/book-14-the-myth-of-mega-mysticism/ I would recommend at least the first 3 chapters to get an idea of the issues involved.

1. What is Kurt’s view of proper mysticism? It may match almost exactly with what the paper says. Then Kurt’s criticisms would relate more to interpretation of individual passages.

I believe there is a place for the miraculous and mysterious in the Christian’s life. But as I state in my book:

At the other extreme from the “Bible only” camp is what we call mega mysticism. We refer to this belief and practice as mega mysticism because, as noted, we believe there is a place for the miraculous and even the mysterious in our relationship with God. Therefore, the addition of mega reflects our concern over unbiblical extremes in claims to God “speaking” to us apart from Scripture. Some mysticism in the Christian life is to be expected. However, we believe mega mysticism is unbiblical, and potentially damaging. Mega mystical teaching and practice exaggerates the need, expectation, occurrence, spirituality, and value of extra-biblical, direct divine revelation, and in our opinion comes perilously close to violating the biblical warnings about divination. (sec. 14.1.A)

1. The natural and the supernatural. God also works through the natural, promptings, impressions, thoughts,

If these “promptings” are from God than they are supernatural- an intervention into our natural thinking processes.

1. The scripture says that God speaks to us in ways in addition to the scripture. Creation, Conscience, trials, the wisdom of our elders.

Agreed. See chapters 7.11-7.14 at http://trainingtimothys.org/books/book-7-gods-revelation/ on four ways that God guides and teaches us apart from Scripture- these include His deeds in our life, spiritual gifts, human authorities, and our New Nature.

1. The scripture nowhere says that God speaks to us through a new nature. In fact, the scripture never says that we have a new nature. Even the NIV, which often (and I believe often incorrectly) translates “flesh” as “human nature,” never uses the words “new nature.”

Neither do I say our New Nature “speaks” to us. Rather, it is to control us. Eph 4:24 NIV uses “new self,” NLT uses “new nature.” I believe “nature” is a very good word to reflect what the Apostle is referring to- the Spirit of God living through us- producing His fruits. See chapter 7.12 on this.

1. Kurt is too hard on Eldridge’s quote. Eldridge does not say he was commanded to go fishing. He said he was prompted.

As stated in my book:

If God said it, then it was a command, because as far as Scripture is concerned, there are no cases in which God personally communicated to a person mere suggestions. On the contrary, whenever God communicated with someone in Scripture it would have been sinful disobedience to disregard what was said. (sec. 14.1.B). So was it a command or suggestion? God doesn’t do the latter, at least if the Bible is to be our guide.

1. The story was used to illustrate a scriptural truth that God wants us to sometimes simply receive from Him [receive what?] and let Him bless our hearts [how?], as well as the idea that we must care for our hearts, something that Eldridge has already attempted to prove from scripture. This story is simply describing a prompting from God for Eldridge to obey a Biblical truth.

The prompting Eldredge speaks of is God telling him to “go fishing.” Where is that in the Bible? What are these descriptions of Eldridge’s writing really saying? Do we have biblical commands, instruction, or examples of God doing something like this merely through planting thoughts in our head?

1. The emphasis on rationality almost comes across as though rationality is trustworthy. The best of us are not always rational, but deceived and irrationally biased toward sin, the world and the devil.

This is in danger of falling into philosophical skepticism. God ordained for us to make decisions with our Spirit-liberated reason. The fact that we might not always use it correctly does not change God’s intention for it. For further on the unbiblical disparagement of our God-given reasoning faculties and God’s purpose for them see chapter 2.4 at http://trainingtimothys.org/books/book-2-biblical-philosophy/ and chapters 4.3-4.4 at http://trainingtimothys.org/books/book-4-biblical-psychology/

8) We need God’s promptings and leading constantly. He is at work in us to will and to work for His good pleasure. He does not do that by turning our wills without our knowledge or consent, but by working on our wills. This must include promptings, probably thousands of them every day.

“Prompting” is a biblical term if the contents of the prompting can be found in Scripture. Of course the Spirit prompts us to obey the commands of Scripture. But what biblical evidence do we have that the Spirit will “prompt” us to do an extra-biblical thing like “go fishing”? If one believes otherwise, they will be apt to abandon reason and facts for their extra-biblical decision making and live by their feelings and impulses.

1. Few decisions that we make are without moral undertones. If nothing else, the Spirit can help us discern our moral obligations and the impure motives of our hearts so that we can have the objectivity to make a rational decision. We could not do this apart from the Spirit’s leading and working.

This again suggests that God did not give us a mind capable of applying Scripture to our lives. I have written elsewhere:

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

This seems to be another case in which God the Holy Spirit is being called upon to do something that He has already equipped us to do ourselves. While some would claim that the proper and personal application of Scripture requires a revelation of the Spirit, we would only point out that the Spirit has already “fixed” our mind such that it is now capable of producing customized applications of God’s word for us without additional revelation. (section 3.3.A.4)

1. Even in “amoral” decisions, our Heavenly Father surely knows which decisions will be best for us and will bring Him most glory. Is our Heavenly Father less wise or concerned than an earthly father would be? Will He withhold this wisdom from His children when we earnestly ask Him for it? Perhaps sometimes. But can we say always? If He ever might, we are wise to seek His leading and guidance in such decisions.

There are several problems with this statement. 1) It claims that God has a will for us that we need to know and respond to that is not communicated in Scripture. This is a serious claim and a big topic which I address in chapter 14.5. 2) How would God communicate such a thing to us? If not biblical means such as visions, apparitions, or angels, then some sort of divine/human mental telepathy (in which God is directly planting extra-biblical thoughts in our head) is required and this is not found as a means of divine revelation in Scripture to His people.

1. A lack of recognizing the promptings of the Spirit in our lives fails to give Him glory. It is dishonoring to claim that thoughts, urges, inclinations, etc. that are prompted by the Holy Spirit are our own apart from the Spirit. Not recognizing the Spirit’s working dishonors him.

Agreed. But biblically speaking the Spirit’s promptings will always be one of the fruits of the Spirit which we can readily recognize as coming from Him. The mistake that mega mysticism makes is suggesting that the Spirit will give us promptings on extra-biblical matters that cannot be checked with Scripture, and that we are to recognize and somehow distinguish those promptings from our own thinking.

1. The definition of parakletos fairly accurately describes how the word was used outside the scripture, but fails to account for its usage in John 14-16. But the word’s definition is largely irrelevant.

That seems to be an odd way of approaching the data we have in Greek lexicons. When do we simply ignore how a word was used in first century Greek and assume the biblical writers changed the meaning? parakletos meant “one who speaks for you” as John also uses it in 1 John 2:1, not one who speaks to you as implied in some translations. Because its translation as “Counselor” in the Gospel of John is a major proof text for claims of extra-biblical guidance it is relevant.

1. The passage states that the Holy Spirit will be much more than simply an advocate for the disciples and for all believers.
   1. He will be a replacement for the presence of Jesus
   2. He will be like a father to them (Jesus wouldn’t leave them as orphans)
   3. Presumably, He was the agent through which Jesus would disclose Himself to those who have Jesus’ commandments and keep them (14:21)
   4. He was the agent through which the Father and the Son would come and make their abode with those who keep His word (14:23).
   5. He would teach them all things (14:26).
   6. He would bring to their remembrance the things that Jesus spoke (14:26).
   7. The Helper would testify along with them, witnessing together about Jesus (15:26-27).
   8. It was to their advantage to have the Spirit rather than Jesus’ physical presence. He said this to bring them comfort for their sorrow concerning His leaving (16:7).
   9. He would convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (16: 8-11).
   10. He would guide them into all the truth, speak what He hears from the Father and the Son, and disclose to them what is to come (18:13).

It is a precarious thing to take promises that were originally given to the Apostles and claim them for ourselves. Does the Spirit tell us “what is to come?” And if we cannot claim this part of the promises to the Apostles, what other cautions are in order regarding verses that mega mysticism applies to themselves without limitation? Was not this promise fulfilled in the Apostle John’s Revelation? For a full discussion of the meaning and use of “paraklete” in John see chapter 14.13

1. Kurt’s emphasis almost negates any subjective leading or moving of the Holy Spirit.

Where is this promised in Scripture? Where do we have examples of it? And why doesn’t the Scripture give us instruction, like all the mega mystical books do, on how to recognize and distinguish that subjective, extra-biblical leading apart from our own thinking?

1. That we experience the moving of the Holy Spirit in producing the fruit of the Spirit requires us to be able to sense His presence and power and leading. Does He lead us to love? Does He lead us to rejoice? Would this not be considered prompting? If we cannot sense such promptings, in truth, they do not exist. Nothing in the scripture excludes these promptings and leadings and inclinations from our rational, logical thinking or limites them to reading or hearing the Word of God.

Agreed. If we limit the “promptings” of the Spirit to biblical commands and fruits then we are being biblical. It is when we claim the Spirit does this for things the Scripture would not tell us that we become unbiblical.

15) “And He has filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding and in knowledge and in all craftsmanship; (Exodus 35:31, NASB95). Here we see that the Spirit filled this man with wisdom and understanding. Evidently this is one possible result of the Spirit’s filling. Presumably this wisdom was not apart from the man’s natural mind and intelligence, but the Spirit worked through and augmented his natural mind and intelligence. The wisdom was in a non-moral areas—craftsmanship.

Do we really want to claim that this is normative for Christians? We can expect God to give us expert knowledge of a skill simply through divine revelation? This is better understood as an example of the revelatory gift of divine knowledge and wisdom (cf. 1 Cor 12:8) which Paul claimed was a miraculous gift given to the Apostles as well. See discussion in chapter 8.2

16) In what sense could the Spirit give guidance “apart from the mind?” All guidance must be spoken to the mind to be understood. Those who believe that the Spirit guides us through promptings and urgings and impressions certainly believe that these are given to the mind. Thus it seems to me that the true concern is a situation when the Lord gives guidance that does not make sense to our mind, guidance that seems to be beyond or in contradiction to what our understanding would say we ought to do. Although the Lord often gave people guidance in the scripture that made perfect sense to them, there are many instances when His guidance seemed to go very much against what they humanly understood to be the best thing to do. Examples would be the Lord’s command to Jonah to go to Nineveh, God’s command to Abraham to kill his son of promise, the leading of the Israelites into a trap at the edge of the Red Sea, the Spirit’s command to Peter to “rise, kill and eat,” and countless other examples. Certainly God’s leading in this type of instance would need to be stronger and more convincing and therefore more supernaturally oriented, otherwise the leading would never counteract our resistance to the idea. Perhaps the concern is that some people will presumptuously take indistinct impressions and promptings as definitely from the Holy Spirit and make decisions contrary to their human understanding of what is good based on those vague impressions. Certainly this is unwise and will get people into lots of trouble and should be taught against. If God is going to lead us contrary to what our mind and reason says to be the wisest way to go or the way we think that the Word instructs us, we should anticipate that His guidance will be very clear and even supernatural.

All of the biblical examples of such divine guidance happened through “physical” revelations such as angels, apparitions, or visions. Such guidance did not even occur through having to correctly interpret circumstances and coincidences. The concern is a claim that God reveals extra-biblical things to His people through directly planting thoughts in their mind that they are to recognize as coming from Him. There are no biblical promises, instruction, or examples of such a thing. And thank God, because despite all the instruction in mega mystical writing on how to recognize and interpret such extra-biblical revelation, they leave Christians confused and even scared about missing it and God’s will. There are always harmful consequences to misinterpreting God’s word.

17) Yet, our response to such foolishness should not lead us to reject the clear teaching that God does lead us through the Spirit [yes- in moral, biblical virtues], fills us with the Spirit [empowering us to obey biblical commands to live with those virtues], guides us through the Spirit [what does that mean?], and inclines our hearts, empowers us, emboldens us and gives us wisdom through the Spirit [what does that mean?].

It can be demonstrated that from a biblical perspective, wisdom is always moral in nature (see chapter 14.18). For example, compare James 1:5 with a description of the wisdom that is received in James 3:13-17.

18) Usually He does this by assisting our human reasoning [what does that mean?], influencing our will, and strengthening our emotional state. It would be a great loss of glory to Him to neglect or diminish this work of the Spirit in our lives, guiding our hearts and minds [what does that mean?]. It would also be presumptuous and prideful folly to attribute His promptings, moving, wisdom, and leading to ourselves.

If the “promptings” we claim coming from our own convictions and decision making are moral and biblical in nature this concern can be avoided. The bigger danger is that it can be presumptuous and prideful folly to attribute our own extra-biblical thoughts, impulses, and decisions to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, giving them a divine authority they do not deserve, which is continually the case in mega mysticism.

19) Another improper response would be to say that God never will lead us in ways that are contrary to our own understanding of what is proper or best or that is inconsistent with our understanding of the scripture. Such a stance would inappropriately exalt our reason. Would this not be the essence of rationalism, putting human reason above all else?. Certainly it would be prideful. Yet, we should insist that any leading from God that is contrary to our understanding of what is wise or best be very clear, way more than a simple prompting or impression. Again, following such indistinct impressions contrary to our best understanding is foolish.

And how would we define “very clear.” The only time God expected biblical characters to violate reason was when He sent them an angel, appeared and spoke to them in an apparition or vision, etc. Is a mere powerful thought enough for us? An apparent string of coincidental circumstances? None of these forms of divining God’s will are biblical.