A.W. Tozer's Mystical Influences: Julian of Norwich

[asterisktom]

Tozer is a man, not an apostle, so I'd suggest you read every 'scholar' with that same amount of scrutiny, even Calvin, Augustine, Luther and the like.

He refers to himself as a "prophet". Is that a good thing? Does it encourage Berean cross-checking?

And many are quite willing to take him at his word.

"Tozer was a singular preacher in still other ways. A self-proclaimed “minor prophet,” he cried out for the church to shun materialism, consumerism, and ministry through entertainment." Source: http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/607

And from Tozer himself:
"Help me to remember that I am a prophet; not a promoter, not a religious manager—but a prophet." Source: http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/2008/...iritual-journey-of-a-w-tozer-by-lyle-dorsett/

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is much better for us, most of all, to search the Scriptures diligently as if we were searching for gold, which is what it is. The Puritans, also, had their own baggage. However, they were a definite improvement over their contemporaries

If I understand the reason for your giving that verse, what you deem to be a plank I consider foundational.

Really? The Puritans were state-churchist persecutors. The New England Puritans persecuted Baptist and Quakers; they hanged four Quakers on Boston Common.

 

[asterisktom]

Here you seem to post a few quotes where Tozer says something good about Julian and then you spend the rest of the time quoting Julian. I was just asking you to quote Tozer himself in context and deal with his views in context.

I probably should follow through on your suggestion here, Skandelon. One of the articles I wrote on Tozer I had already posted here, so I will just give the link:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/528878026/aw-tozer-reconsidered/

This was the first one that I had ever written on him.

I will also post two other articles that I don't think ever made it here to BB. But they will be in separate threads. I had written other articles as well, but the two I am planning to post here deal much with that very area that of mysticism, verifying the point I make about Tozer. You wanted proof of my assertions. They will be forthcoming.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is incredible... unless I am mistaken countless hours have been spent researching the ills/heresies real or imagined of people that Tozer quotes favorably in an effort to disparage Tozer himself. What is wrong with eating the meat and spitting out the bones? I would favorably quote Richard Dawkins if he were adamantly proposing that the sum of 2 and 2 was 4. This is like the "opposition research" that I thought was consigned to politicians.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is incredible... unless I am mistaken countless hours have been spent researching the ills/heresies real or imagined of people that Tozer quotes favorably in an effort to disparage Tozer himself. What is wrong with eating the meat and spitting out the bones? I would favorably quote Richard Dawkins if he were adamantly proposing that the sum of 2 and 2 was 4. This is like the "opposition research" that I thought was consigned to politicians.

:thumbs: Amen!

 

[asterisktom]

Really? The Puritans were state-churchist persecutors. The New England Puritans persecuted Baptist and Quakers; they hanged four Quakers on Boston Common.

Oh good grief. There was a famous Baptist of a century ago in Texas who fatally shot someone. Does that mean all Baptists are bad?

I said "they were an improvement", not "perfect".

 

[asterisktom]

This is incredible... unless I am mistaken countless hours have been spent researching the ills/heresies real or imagined of people that Tozer quotes favorably in an effort to disparage Tozer himself. What is wrong with eating the meat and spitting out the bones? I would favorably quote Richard Dawkins if he were adamantly proposing that the sum of 2 and 2 was 4. This is like the "opposition research" that I thought was consigned to politicians.

I can live with your assessment. You are welcome to it. And, yes, you are right. Countless hours were used in my research. I feel that topics like these are very important for the church of God.

 

[asterisktom]

:thumbs: Amen!

Martin Marprelate, do you have ECF books in your library? How about Vol 5 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers? That would be Augustine's Anti-Pelagian writings.

But I guess Augustine was just a bitter unspiritual grump too.

And, no, I am not comparing myself with Augustine. But I am showing you a valid precedent. Augustine wasted "countless hours" whipping up on poor Pelagius. And before that he brutally worked over those Donatists and Manichees.

It only seems odd and un-Christian to some because they have forgotten what we are supposed to be about. Well, I am clear on what I should be doing. As anyone here who has read my posts knows, I do not major on writing against people. I have plenty of other issues I write about. But being critical of things that are taught are a necessary ingredient of helpful Christian writing. And one can't be vague when one is critical. Quotes are needed.

Concerning this very charge of my being hateful and critical I should probably just quote a section from my first article:

"We [Christians] are against error in principal, but are not always aware of it in particular. For instance, I could write generally against some of the errors of AW Tozer - without naming him - and get comments of agreement. But when I pin an author to these errors - and give accurate quotes - I get defensive letters from some ... and enthusiastic Amens from others.

So this is why I "attack" Tozer. I don't hate the man. I love the Truth he himself - albeit unwittingly - attacks."

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So this is why I "attack" Tozer. I don't hate the man. I love the Truth he himself - albeit unwittingly - attacks."
Perhaps even "attacking" Tozer is o.k. but you are not hitting his teaching. You are attacking people he quotes, then equivocating; isn't this kind of a genetic fallacy? I am quite confident that any truly heretical error you will find in the people he quotes favorably he would consider heretical error too. BTW, do you think that Tozer is that influential anyway? Many knowledgeable Baptists I know have never even heard of the man.

 

[Jerome]

Also puzzled why in the world this was posted in the Baptist section.

 

[Skandelon]

And, by the way, a quick check of my articles at Xanga would bring up several things I wrote that were quite critical of those heroes of the Reformed camp. This is not that I don't appreciate good qualities in Christians of several stripes. It is just that I believe that too many Christians think too highly of their leaders, allowing them to do their thinking for them.

Well, we agree on this point, for sure. :thumbsup:

I admit that I may have judged your motives too quickly, you do appear to objectively examine 'leader's' of all stripes, and your articles seem very well researched. While I prefer to deal almost exclusively with a scholars actual claims regarding doctrine (i.e. "this is what I believe") versus the 'guilt by association' approach (i.e. "that person influenced me" -- so that means you endorse everything they said). However, looking at those they endorse and are influenced by can provide some insight on the intent of a less that clear teaching.

I just know that I often read 'secular' writings from people who hold to really strange beliefs but still walk away with useful and impacting truth that affects my life and ministry. I believe we have the ability to take the good and strain out the bad, or even balance it out as we read it in context with what we know to be true. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin Marprelate, do you have ECF books in your library? How about Vol 5 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers? That would be Augustine's Anti-Pelagian writings.

But I guess Augustine was just a bitter unspiritual grump too.

And, no, I am not comparing myself with Augustine. But I am showing you a valid precedent. Augustine wasted "countless hours" whipping up on poor Pelagius. And before that he brutally worked over those Donatists and Manichees.

I have no objection to a serious critique of faulty theology, but coming from you it is the pot calling the kettle black in a pretty major way. You are steeped in an error far more serious and damaging than anything that Tozer ever considered- the denial of the coming return of Christ.

I read Tozer's Pursuit of God and Knowledge of the Holy as quite a new Christian and found them both very blessed and helpful. In the latter book he quotes extensively from the Roman Catholic poet F.W.Faber. Perhaps one could wish that he had chosen a Protestant poet, but his selection from Faber is actually rather good, for example:-

'The heavens declare Thy glory, Lord,
In every star Thy wisdom shines;
But when our eyes behold Thy word,
We read Thy name in fairer lines.'

As others have said, Tozer, like every Christian writer, needs to be read with discretion, but there is great blessing in reading a man like him whose heart is on fire for God.

Here is a recollection from Warren Wiersbe.

'Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and I were discussing the mystics over dinner one evening and he related an interesting experience. With his permission I repeat it here.
"Dr. Tozer and I shared a conference some years ago," he said, "and I appreciated his ministry and his felowship very much. One day he said to me, 'Lloyd-Jones, you and I hold just about the same position on spiritual matters, but we have come to this position by different routes.'
"'How do you mean?' I asked.
"' Well,' Tozer replied, 'you came by way of the Puritans and I came by way of the mystics.' And do you know, he was right!"'

[QUOTE="asterisktom"So this is why I "attack" Tozer. I don't hate the man. I love the Truth he himself - albeit unwittingly - attacks."[/QUOTE]
I say just the same about you.

Steve

 

[asterisktom]

Here is a recollection from Warren Wiersbe.
Quote:
'Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and I were discussing the mystics over dinner one evening and he related an interesting experience. With his permission I repeat it here.
"Dr. Tozer and I shared a conference some years ago," he said, "and I appreciated his ministry and his felowship very much. One day he said to me, 'Lloyd-Jones, you and I hold just about the same position on spiritual matters, but we have come to this position by different routes.'
"'How do you mean?' I asked.
"' Well,' Tozer replied, 'you came by way of the Puritans and I came by way of the mystics.' And do you know, he was right!"'

I assume you did not read my other post on Tozer, or you would have seen that I began with this same quote. The post is here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=77723

But you see as commendation I see as cautionary. I had written on this:

1. Was this an off-the-cuff remark of Tozer's, an unguarded comment that needs to be seen in the light of other comments?
2. If not, who are these mystics to whom Tozer credits in the way of leading him to maturity in spiritual matters?
3. Are they at all similar in basic orthodoxy to the Puritans - or even to the broader spectrum of Biblical Christianity - or are they quite the opposite?

I then went on to give examples of how these confessedly mentoring influences on Tozer were actually, by their lives and teaching, quite contrary to the Gospel and foundational Christianity.

 

[asterisktom]

I have no objection to a serious critique of faulty theology, but coming from you it is the pot calling the kettle black in a pretty major way. You are steeped in an error far more serious and damaging than anything that Tozer ever considered- the denial of the coming return of Christ.

I have been criticized here by more than one member for always harping on Preterism. But eventually, if I am to take you seriously, Steve, I would have to do just that, seeing that you always come back to your favorite little Shibboleth.

It is a Shibboleth whose existence comes, not from the Bible, but those words of men ("These be thy Creeds, Oh Israel!").

 

[asterisktom]

Well, we agree on this point, for sure. :thumbsup:

I admit that I may have judged your motives too quickly, you do appear to objectively examine 'leader's' of all stripes, and your articles seem very well researched. While I prefer to deal almost exclusively with a scholars actual claims regarding doctrine (i.e. "this is what I believe") versus the 'guilt by association' approach (i.e. "that person influenced me" -- so that means you endorse everything they said). However, looking at those they endorse and are influenced by can provide some insight on the intent of a less that clear teaching.

I just know that I often read 'secular' writings from people who hold to really strange beliefs but still walk away with useful and impacting truth that affects my life and ministry. I believe we have the ability to take the good and strain out the bad, or even balance it out as we read it in context with what we know to be true. I hope that makes sense.

Thank you very much for this, Skandelon. It speaks very well for you. And it is a reminder to me to be the same way.

As far as believing people have the ability to be sifters and strainers; I wish I could believe the same. But I just don't. I find in myself and others a tendency to contrariness and a herding or clumping instinct in believers of all stripes, all gravitating to some particular flagship authority figure.

I did the same thing. And still do, when I am not careful. When I became a Christian it was David Wilkerson and Hal Lindsay, both very popular at the time. As a Charismatist it was Otis and that guy in Oklahoma (not Roberts). When I was Pretrib it was Chuck Missler. When I became Prewrath it was Rosenthal. As a Reformed person it was Hendriksen and Sproul - and John Owen, of course. Amill was Riddlebarger. As a Partial-preterist it was Gentry and as Full-Preterist (though the term is not quite apt) it would be Don Preston and others.

These all - well, the latter ones from Hendriksen on - have much of value to say, but I see each of these have their own slants.

Ultimately we all have to be students of the Word, praying and weighing.

 

[Skandelon]

Yeah, I know what you are saying. We can tend toward the herd mentality sometimes. I guess my experience with formal debate in HS and College broke some of that tendency for me. It was drilled into us to be able to switch sides of a debate at any moment and know how to respond to any argument, even one of our own. It was a much more difficult discipline to learn than it sounds. Just try debating in favor of abortion or some other passionate issue, if you don't believe me. It forces you to see an argument from both sides and weigh the strengths of each side. I guess it also teaches you to strain out the bad and keep the good.

But, you are right, that is not the typical way of dealing with those 'flagship authority figures.' People quote them like they are God and seem to defend them more vehemently than even the scriptures.

There are guys, like Tozer, I respect because I've read a book or two that I enjoyed, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if I find out his taught somethings I disagree with....most scholars disagree with everyone on one point or another. Could it be God sovereignly made it that way to keep us in check? Maybe you need a little mysticism (defined correctly of course) to balance out all that intellect?

 

[asterisktom]

Yeah, I know what you are saying. We can tend toward the herd mentality sometimes. I guess my experience with formal debate in HS and College broke some of that tendency for me. It was drilled into us to be able to switch sides of a debate at any moment and know how to respond to any argument, even one of our own. It was a much more difficult discipline to learn than it sounds. Just try debating in favor of abortion or some other passionate issue, if you don't believe me. It forces you to see an argument from both sides and weigh the strengths of each side. I guess it also teaches you to strain out the bad and keep the good.

But, you are right, that is not the typical way of dealing with those 'flagship authority figures.' People quote them like they are God and seem to defend them more vehemently than even the scriptures.

There are guys, like Tozer, I respect because I've read a book or two that I enjoyed, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if I find out his taught somethings I disagree with....most scholars disagree with everyone on one point or another. Could it be God sovereignly made it that way to keep us in check? Maybe you need a little mysticism (defined correctly of course) to balance out all that intellect?

Agreed about the debating thing. Just last month, as part of my VIP session with a young college student here in China, I alternated debate topics with her. Both of us debated resolutions that we were clearly against. So, it can be done. And it is, as you said, a very good practice. I forget who said (paraphrasing) "Wisdom is the ability to understand and entertain a contrary idea without accepting it."

About the need of (correct) mysticism: I am tempted to give you a little background o just that. But it would require more time than I have now.

I have to go teach some high schoolers how to speaka some gud inglish. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle

That was in my sig before I replaced it with the Tozer quote. :laugh:

Maybe after you teach them english you can teach me Chinese.

 

[asterisktom]

But you see as commendation I see as cautionary.

This should have read "But what you see as commendation I see as cautionary." That is, something bad, not worthy of copying. A bad example to learn from, not a good one to follow after.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Who give a rats ###! Let's pay attention to what Jesus said shall we?