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

[asterisktom]

I didn't want to seem like I was just being uncharitable and curmudgeon-like when I made my recent comments concerning AW Tozer, so I thought I should post this article on this topic of Tozer's indebtedness (to a large and verifiable dgree) to mystics, like Julian here, who clearly are not only extra-Biblical but counter-Biblical. Of course, to be one is to be the other.
​

I wish Tozer would have seen it the same way.
​

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

INTRODUCTION
The writings of A.W. Tozer seem to have two currents running through them. One current is the frequent references to the Bible. But the other - and these are often mixed right in with the first - are the enthusiastic endorsements of the mystical experiences and writings of those whose life and doctrine are quite contrary to the Bible.

He endorses both.
He sees no conflict between those two currents.

In order for us to both disclose Tozer's indebtedness to unbiblical sources and, at the same time, to demonstrate this conflict in his teaching we need to look more closely at just a few of these "super-saints" that Tozer often alludes to. In the next few articles different mystics who figure largely in Tozer's devotional writings will be examined.

​

JULIAN OF NORWICH: A CLOSER LOOK
This article deals with Julian of Norwich, an English Mystic (1342 - 1416). When she was thirty years old she had a severe health crisis. At this time she had a series of visions purportedly from God. When she regained her health she published her account of this vision - rather, a series of visions - in two separate accounts. These accounts became the basis for the published work, "Sixteen Revelations (or, Showings) of Divine Love", c. 1393.

A.W. Tozer, in his book "Knowledge of the Holy" alone, quotes three or four times from Julian of Norwich. Before we get to Tozer's comments, here are a few excerpts from Julian's visions:

"Highly ought we to rejoice that God dwelleth in our soul, and much more highly ought we to rejoice that our soul dwelleth in God. Our soul is made to be God's dwelling-place; and the dwelling-place of the soul is God, Which is unmade. And high understanding it is, inwardly to see and know that God, which is our Maker, dwelleth in our soul; and an higher understanding it is, inwardly to see and to know that our soul, that is made, dwelleth in God's Substance: of which Substance, God, we are that we are.

"And I saw no difference between God and our Substance: but as it were all God; and yet mine understanding took that our Substance is in God: that is to say, that God is God, and our Substance is a creature in God. For the Almighty Truth of the Trinity is our Father: for He made us and keepeth us in Him; and the deep Wisdom of the Trinity is our Mother, in Whom we are all enclosed; the high Goodness of the Trinity is our Lord, and in Him we are enclosed, and He in us. We are enclosed in the Father, and we are enclosed in the Son, and we are enclosed in the Holy Ghost. And the Father is enclosed in us, and the Son is enclosed in us, and the Holy Ghost is enclosed in us: Almightiness, All-Wisdom, All-Goodness: one God, one Lord."

...

"And thus was my understanding led of God to see in Him and to understand, to perceive and to know, that our soul is made-trinity, like to the unmade blissful Trinity, known and loved from without beginning, and in the making oned [as in "make into one"] to the Maker, as it is aforesaid. This sight was full sweet and marvellous to behold, peaceable, restful, sure, and delectable.

"And because of the worshipful oneing that was thus made by God betwixt the soul and body, it behoveth needs to be that mankind shall be restored from double death: which restoring might never be until the time that the Second Person in the Trinity had taken the lower part of man's nature; to Whom the highest [part] was oned in the First-making. And these two parts were in Christ, the higher and the lower: which is but one Soul; the higher part was one in peace with God, in full joy and bliss; the lower part, which is sense-nature, suffered for the salvation of mankind."

​

TOZER'S COMMENDATION
A.W. Tozer wrote this of Julian:

​

"Julian of Norwich, who lived six hundred years ago, saw clearly that the ground of all blessedness is the goodness of God. Chapter six of her incredibly beautiful and perceptive little classic, Revelations of Divine Love..."

However this "classic" is more beautiful than "perceptive". It is nothing less than the message of a deceived soul having duped been by an angel of light. This becomes apparent later in her writings.

It is understandable that readers might take Tozer's praise at face value, since they had no access to her writings - or to the many other mystics he lauds. Until the Internet these "Classics" were hard to find. But now you can read this one, for instance by going here:

http://www.ccel.org/j/julian/revelations/cache/revelations.txt

Wonderful Internet. Makes honest scholars of us all.

​

BUT WHERE IS ANY OF THAT IN THE BIBLE?
The poor reader, reading Tozer's "Knowledge of the Holy", taking the author's assessment on Julian at face value will assume a greater respect for her than is merited.

Tozer conveniently hides much about Julian's life and theology: ​

That she was well within the Roman Catholic belief-boundaries.
Or that she prayed for stigmata and a fatal illness in order to suffer like Christ.
Or that she received as an "answer" to her prayer fourteen visions of Christ and Mary where she was pointedly taught much that is counter to what us more ordinary Christians have to be content with in the ordinary Bible. Where, in our Bibles, for instance, do we find that Christ is "our Mother"? (More on this later).
​

WILL THE REAL TOZER PLEASE SPEAK UP?
Once again, we get into the Tozer vs. Tozer theme, where he speaks well of the Bible on the one hand ... only to build up credibility, it seems, for his speaking even better of those whose teachings and pronouncements are contrary to that blessed Bible. But don't take my word for it. Let us continue. Julian wrote the following:

"The Showings of Divine Love"
The Eleventh Revelation [Showing]

Continued in next post
​

 

[asterisktom]

(Second Part of previous post)

CHAPTER XXV
[These are the words of "Jesus" in Julian's vision]:

AND with this same cheer of mirth and joy our good Lord looked down on the right side and brought to my mind where our Lady stood in the time of His Passion; and said: Wilt thou see her? And in this sweet word [it was] as if He had said: I wot well that thou wouldst see my blessed Mother: for, after myself, she is the highest joy that I might shew thee, and most pleasance [pleasure] and worship to me; and most she is desired to be seen of my blessed creatures. And for the high, marvellous, singular love that He hath to this sweet Maiden, His blessed Mother, our Lady Saint Mary, He shewed her highly rejoicing, as by the meaning of these sweet words; as if He said: Wilt thou see how I love her, that thou mightest joy with me in the love that I have in her and she in me?

[Note: This Jesus said "Mary is the most desired to be seen of His creatures". Also see how that Jesus' love for Mary is on a higher plain than the other saints. In fact, even here being called "Saint Mary" distances her from the many other Christians who, in Roman Catholic theology, are not so called. This is all typical doctrine from Rome, of course, and wouldn't have even be worth mentioning except to remind the reader that this is the writing that Tozer calls "perceptive". My purpose in this article is not to discuss the teaching is of the Roman Catholic Church, but to show that many of Tozer's saints are well within this belief-system and, in light of this, Tozer ought to have been more transparent on this point.]

And also (unto more understanding this sweet word) our Lord speaketh to all mankind that shall be saved, as it were all to one person, as if He said: Wilt thou see in her how thou art loved? For thy love I made her so high, so noble and so worthy; and this pleaseth me, and so will I that it doeth thee.

[Julian may or may not have taught Universalism: The belief that all mankind will be saved eventually. Because the language of Julian can be taken two ways, however, this charge cannot be insisted on.]

For after Himself she is the most blissful sight.

[This is wrong on many levels, not the least of which is the fact that God will not give His glory to another.]

But hereof am I not learned to long to see her bodily presence while I am here, but the virtues of her blessed soul: her truth, her wisdom, her charity; whereby I may learn to know myself and reverently dread my God. And when our good Lord had shewed this and said this word:

Wilt thou see her? I answered and said: Yea, good Lord, I thank Thee; yea, good Lord, if it be Thy will. Oftentimes I prayed this, and I weened to have seen her in bodily presence, but I saw her not so. And Jesus in that word shewed me ghostly sight of her: right as I had seen her afore little and simple, so He shewed her then high and noble and glorious, and pleasing to Him above all creatures.

And He willeth that it be known; that [so] all those that please them in Him should please them in her, and in the pleasance [pleasure] that He hath in her and she in Him. And, to more understanding, He shewed this example: As if a man love a creature singularly, above all creatures, he willeth to make all creatures to love and to have pleasance in that creature that he loveth so greatly.

[Why bother having the Incarnation or death and resurrection of Christ if all this is true of Mary? How is it possible that Tozer did not see this Mary-mediatrix theology? Or did he pass it over as being a minor issue? In all of Tozer's commendations of these mystics, I have not yet come across any cautionary disclaimers on his part.]

And in this word that Jesus said: Wilt thou see her? methought it was the most pleasing word that He might have given me of her, with that ghostly [spiritual] Shewing that He gave me of her. For our Lord shewed me nothing in special but our Lady Saint Mary; and her He shewed three times. The first was as she was with Child; the second was as she was in her sorrows under the Cross; the third is as she is now in pleasing, worship, and joy."

[End of Julian's 11th vision]

Aah! At least the Goddess is worshiping. Such blatant blasphemy throughout this one vision! Now, here is the question that I have: What were Tozer's thoughts about this book?

Had he read it through? He most probably did.
Does he believe these teachings: An elevated Mediatrix Mary?

But there is more in the writings of Julian that we need to touch on. Notice especially the underlined phrases:

​

"For he is our Mother, Brother and Saviour. And in our good Lord the holy Ghost we have our rewarding and our yielding, for our living and our travail, and endless overpassing all that we desire in his marvelous courtesy of his high plenteous grace.

For all our life is in three.In the first we have our being. And in the second we have our increasing. And in the third we have our fulfilling. The first is nature.The second is mercy. The third is grace. For the first, I saw and understood that the high might of the Trinity is our Father.

And the deep wisdom of the Trinity is our Mother. And the great love of the Trinity is our Lord. And all this we have in nature and in our substantial making. And furthermore I saw that the second Person who is our substantial Mother, that same dearworthy Person is now become our sensual Mother. For we are double of God's making, that is to say, substantial and sensual. Our substance is the higher part, which we have in our Father God Almighty.And the second Person of the Trinity is our Mother in nature in our substantial making, in whom we are grounded and rooted.

And he is our Mother in mercy in our sensuality taking flesh. And thus our Mother is working to us in diverse ways in whom our parts are kept undivided. For in our Mother Christ we profit and increase."

This last section is all that is needed to show that Julian of Norwich has nothing to teach a Christian, that she is herself deceived. Anyone who quotes her, whether selectively - as Tozer is in the habit of doing - only confuses the truth of Christ.​

 

[SolaSaint]

Tom,

Interesting. It is always bitter sweet to see men like this exposed. I have read some of Tozer, not a lot, but always thought him to be genuine and orthodox. It's bitter to see a man that is considered a giant in Christianity to be exposed as a possible new ager or early emergent if you will. It is sweet though to expose his error to the truth of the gospel. As always I will look into this more before making any final judgment for myself. Thanks

 

[preachinjesus]

There's nothing wrong with, so called, historic mystics like Julian of Norwich. There is something to be learned from some of them. Though there are, like all things, some excesses (like fundamentalism doesn't have them) there are some good Christian mystics out there.

 

[Skandelon]

Tom,

Interesting. It is always bitter sweet to see men like this exposed. I have read some of Tozer, not a lot, but always thought him to be genuine and orthodox. It's bitter to see a man that is considered a giant in Christianity to be exposed as a possible new ager or early emergent if you will. It is sweet though to expose his error to the truth of the gospel. As always I will look into this more before making any final judgment for myself. Thanks

Don't believe everything you read on the internet, or if you do at least keep reading so as to get both sides of the story. Harris writes a good book on virtually the same subject but from a positive view point of Tozer's mysticism (The Mystic Spirituality of A.W. Tozer, a Twentieth-Century American Protestant). Here is one review of the book to give you a glimpse. Notice the way in which Tozer defined and lived his so-called 'mysticism.' (in bold below) I should say that we all should strive for such in our lives.

A. W. Tozer was one of the more notable preachers and authors within the 20th century that introduced Christian mysticism into the Protestant Evangelical arena without compromising his conservative, Evangelical beliefs. According to Ms. Harris, the basic hypothesis which her study has substantiated is that "Tozer is in the mystical tradition of Western Christianity though possessing characteristics distinctive of Evangelicalism." By Christian mysticism, she means "an experience of interior meeting and union of a person with the divine infinity which sustains him and all other being (essence/existence), namely, with the personal God through Jesus Christ." The goal of Christian mysticism is stated as: "union with God in Christ," assumed to be distinct from the regeneration experience.

The biographical memoir of Tozer by David J. Fant, Jr., titled "A. W. Tozer, A Twentieth Century Prophet" (1964), is used as a springboard for Ms. Harris' focused study of Tozer's mystical and conceptual approach to the world. At the end of Fant's book, he included a list of books recommended by Tozer, "For those who would know `the deep things of God.'" It is this list of thirty-five mystical works (which are included as Appendix A of Harris' book) that Ms. Harris used as a frame of reference for analyzing Tozer's mystical approach. Tozer's list includes such classics as "The Ascent of Mt. Carmel" and "Dark Night of the Soul" by John of the Cross, "The Cloud of Unknowing" and "Theologia Germanica" written anonymously, "The Practice of the Presence of God" by Brother Lawrence, "A Testament of Devotion" by Thomas Kelly, "Christian Perfection" by Fenelon, and "Revelations of Divine Love" by Julian of Norwich (the last being the only woman listed and who Tozer jokingly called his girlfriend). It must be noted, however, that the list was given by Mr. Fant with this qualification: "In recommending these books Dr. Tozer did not mean to put his stamp of approval on the entire contents. Rather they were offered as products of men and women who ardently loved their Lord; if any doctrinal defects should appear these would be far overbalanced by the spiritual verities." Appendix B of Ms. Harris' book includes a letter from Mr. Fant to the author stating that Tozer prepared the list himself in response to many inquiries and that there was a copy of each book in his personal library.

The book is comprised of seven chapters, titled as follows: 1) Introduction, 2) Tozer - The Man and His Context, 3) Tozer and Mystical Thought, I, 4) Tozer and Mystical Thought, II, 5) Tozer and Mystical Thought, III, 6) Tozer's Concept of Man's Relationship to the World, and 7) Summary, Appraisal, Recommendations, Conclusion. As the titles indicate, the first two chapters are preliminary in terms of introducing Tozer's personal characteristics and historical context. Chapter 1 also gives definitions for the terms "Mysticism", "Fundamentalist", "Evangelical" and "World" as well as compares the mystical process to psychoanalysis, also looking at the role of consciousness. Chapter 3 discusses the general characteristics of Tozer's mysticism, including the salient characteristics of Tozer himself. The general characteristics are as follows: 1) its firm root in scripture, 2) its Christological nature, 3) its marked moral orientation, 4) its tension between living in the world and yet not being of the world, and 5) its experiential, devotional aspect. This chapter also introduces the traditional stages of the mystic way: purgation, illumination, the dark night of the soul, and union. Chapter 4 examines in more detail Tozer's writings in relation to his recommended reading list. Here it is stated that Tozer's basic principle is "the interior nature of religion". Although some of the books on Tozer's list are directly referenced, Ms. Harris takes a general, principle-oriented approach which, if one hasn't read the recommended works, will have to be taken at face value. Also, Ms. Harris has a select number of Tozer's works that she repeatedly references in both Chapter 4 and elsewhere to the exclusion of many others listed in her bibliography. Specifically, she references and quotes from the following eight books: The Knowledge of the Holy, The Divine Conquest, The Pursuit of God, The Root of the Righteous, That Incredible Christian, Man: The Dwelling Place of God, Of God and Men, and Born After Midnight. Chapter 5 looks at how Tozer's basic principle (the interiority of true religion) as well as his rhetorical focus and context/background operated in practice. One book that Ms. Harris focuses on is "The Knowledge of the Holy" with its six conditions for attaining a transforming vision of God. She also discusses the two principal forms of the final stage (or goal) of the mystic way: union or fusion. The former involves man in a more intimate relation with God whereas the latter involves annihilation of individuality within God. Tozer is said to have embraced the former. Chapter 6 notes that "Tozer's basic position is that if man is right with God he will be right in his relationships with men" and that trying to create proper human relations without a solid "God-man relationship" is "essentially powerless". This chapter also takes this position of Tozer's and examines it in connection with H. Richard Niebuhr's five modes of relation between Christ and the world as discussed in his book, "Christ and Culture".

The nature of Chapter 7 is clear from its title. Here it is stated that the level of mysticism expressed in Tozer's writings is not the most advanced. His writing on the deeper things of God is said to be primarily introductory and "not to guide those far along". Ms. Harris notes, however, that this doesn't mean that Tozer himself wasn't more advanced in the mystical process he introduced and which is expounded in more detail (in terms of procedure) in some of the books he recommended. From my own reading of Tozer, I would add that his mystical approach seems to be more cataphatic (focusing experientially on the positive attributes of God) than apophatic (focusing experientially on the "negative" or transcendent attributes) and more affective (focusing on love and the personal) than "intellective" (focusing on knowledge [via unknowing] and the "non-personal"), although he certainly doesn't exclude discussing them (cf. "The Knowledge of the Holy", for example, which refers to "The Cloud of Unknowing"). His approach is, as Ms. Harris pointed out earlier, primarily devotional in nature. Meister Eckhart is an example of one mystic that many writers on mysticism consider a primary representative of the latter (apophatic, intellective) approach, although he also utilized the former. This distinction is somewhat related to the difference between personal union and so-called "fusion" in the final stage of the mystic way as discussed, albeit superficially and imperfectly, in Chapter 5. There Ms. Harris stated that "Eckhart goes beyond the personal God to the Godhead, the metaphysical, the impersonal, the Absolute," although I think she doesn't fully understand the nature of Eckhart's distinction between God and Godhead in terms of doing and being, activity and inactivity. Nonetheless, Eckhart's "Talks of Instruction" is on Tozer's recommended book list.

Overall, this book is a good introduction to the mystical side of Tozer. It also gives inside information about him that cannot be found anywhere else in print due to personal conversations that Ms. Harris had with some of Tozer's family, friends, and acquaintances. However, it lacks a Biblical assessment, limiting the analysis to Tozer's works as they relate to the Christian mystical tradition in general and his recommended book list in particular. This is true even though Ms. Harris lists in Chapter 3 several Biblical passages that she claims "definitely have a meaning quite consistent with mysticism". One book that does aim for a balanced Biblical assessment of mysticism from an Evangelical perspective is "Mysticism: An Evangelical Option?" by Winfried Corduan. Corduan defends Tozer's understanding of "knowledge by direct spiritual experience" as "a mystical experience that gives a person subjective confirmation of biblical truth," but he doesn't explore other areas of Tozer's mystical interests.

Ms. Harris' book was an enjoyable read, encourages further study, and is highly recommended.​

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,

Interesting. It is always bitter sweet to see men like this exposed. I have read some of Tozer, not a lot, but always thought him to be genuine and orthodox. It's bitter to see a man that is considered a giant in Christianity to be exposed as a possible new ager or early emergent if you will. It is sweet though to expose his error to the truth of the gospel. As always I will look into this more before making any final judgment for myself. Thanks

Thanks for the comments, Rick. Yes, by all means, reserve judgment until you have had time to study this out on your own. If you want to see other articles that I have written on Tozer feel free to check out my Xanga and look for the Tozer tags. There also a few other writers who have written very well and thoroughly on this same subject. A quick search should bring them up.

For me the interest in Tozer is because I had invested much of my earlier years in Tozer's writings, having "graduated" to him from Hal Lindsay and such.

 

[Skandelon]

Tom, I'd say you seem to be doing a lot of 'guilt by association' ploys to discredit this good man's life. Why not just deal with what HE claimed to believe and teach?

Many preachers quote and even show great admiration for old dead poets, mystics, artists, philosophers and the like, but it doesn't mean they endorse every thing they taught. Calvin himself had some 'shady' history and even some teachings many Calvinists today would reject. This is especially true of Augustine as well. And do we want to dig out the 'church fathers?' Some of these people wrote some weird stuff. Martin Luther is even quoted as teaching that flatulence was the expelling of a demon, so should we find everyone who quoted and admired Luther and rail on them with similar 'guilt by association' tactics that you have employed against Tozer?

I think not. :tear:

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, and what about the questionable ending of the book of Mark where it teaches about snake handling etc? You don't think that even goes beyond some of the 'mystical' issues you've raised here?

 

[asterisktom]

Don't believe everything you read on the internet, or if you do at least keep reading so as to get both sides of the story.

Very good advice. But also don't assume that both sides of any story are equally valid. To treat them as equal at first is necessary - and I did in the case of Tozer. In fact, I was at first more to defend than to criticize him.

But now I am quite adamant in being critical of his works, and on his influence in modern Christianity.

---snipped. Underlining here mine (Tom's)----

At the end of Fant's book, he included a list of books recommended by Tozer, "For those who would know `the deep things of God.'" It is this list of thirty-five mystical works (which are included as Appendix A of Harris' book) that Ms. Harris used as a frame of reference for analyzing Tozer's mystical approach. Tozer's list includes such classics as "The Ascent of Mt. Carmel" and "Dark Night of the Soul" by John of the Cross, "The Cloud of Unknowing" and "Theologia Germanica" written anonymously, "The Practice of the Presence of God" by Brother Lawrence, "A Testament of Devotion" by Thomas Kelly, "Christian Perfection" by Fenelon, and "Revelations of Divine Love" by Julian of Norwich (the last being the only woman listed and who Tozer jokingly called his girlfriend). It must be noted, however, that the list was given by Mr. Fant with this qualification: "In recommending these books Dr. Tozer did not mean to put his stamp of approval on the entire contents. Rather they were offered as products of men and women who ardently loved their Lord; if any doctrinal defects should appear these would be far overbalanced by the spiritual verities."

I underlined the works above because I believe that, if anyone has doubts on my basic contention here - that the message of these writers (almost all of them, at least) is far from the Christian message.

Secondly, Tozer does indeed put his stamp of approval on their contents. If not entirely, then, 95% of it. For proof of this you need only read what he himself has written. These can all be seen in my own articles. Especially my first one, which was the product of much study.

---snipped----
Overall, this book is a good introduction to the mystical side of Tozer. It also gives inside information about him that cannot be found anywhere else in print due to personal conversations that Ms. Harris had with some of Tozer's family, friends, and acquaintances. However, it lacks a Biblical assessment, limiting the analysis to Tozer's works as they relate to the Christian mystical tradition in general and his recommended book list in particular. This is true even though Ms. Harris lists in Chapter 3 several Biblical passages that she claims "definitely have a meaning quite consistent with mysticism". One book that does aim for a balanced Biblical assessment of mysticism from an Evangelical perspective is "Mysticism: An Evangelical Option?" by Winfried Corduan. Corduan defends Tozer's understanding of "knowledge by direct spiritual experience" as "a mystical experience that gives a person subjective confirmation of biblical truth," but he doesn't explore other areas of Tozer's mystical interests.

It is understood that she does not give a biblical assessment. There can be no positive biblical assessment of that which refuses to stay within the guidelines of the Bible. Mysticism, for all of its popularity now, is nothing but revamped gnosticism.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom, I'd say you seem to be doing a lot of 'guilt by association' ploys to discredit this good man's life. Why not just deal with what HE claimed to believe and teach?

This is not guilt by association. This is guilt by quotation - plenty of them. In my seven or eight articles I painstakingly looked up, and double-checked where I could, all of these quotations.

Your last sentence makes no sense. I am dealing with what he believes and teaches.

 

[asterisktom]

Many preachers quote and even show great admiration for old dead poets, mystics, artists, philosophers and the like, but it doesn't mean they endorse every thing they taught.

But do you not see the difference between these apples and those oranges? Calvin and Luther did not actively promote those people that they, on unguarded occasion, showed affinity for.

Tozer, by sad contrast, most certainly does promote their writings. And he bemoans that their voice is lost in today's world.

And now, thanks to the Internet, their writings are now available for everyone. But this is both good and bad.

It is good for those with discernment. As they read what, say, Julian actually wrote, or what Teresa of Avila wrote, or Hildegard of Bingen, they should be able to say, "Where is any of this in the Bible? Some of this is contrary to Scripture."

It will be bad, of course, for those who end up reading these "masters of the inner life" with as little discernment as Tozer had.

 

[Skandelon]

Do you believe Tozer is in heaven? Do you believe he was saved? I know you can't know for sure, but if you had to guess based on what you read?

 

[asterisktom]

Do you believe Tozer is in heaven? Do you believe he was saved? I know you can't know for sure, but if you had to guess based on what you read?

[Sniff. Sniff] Its a trap!

Love believes all things.

But it isn't blind.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank that is in your own eye?'

We do well to remember that the best of men are men at best, and to read them with discrimination. However, Tozer can be read with tremendous benefit and has helped thousands. He is much to be preferred to many modern writers.

It is, however, much better to read the Puritans than the Mystics.

Steve

 

[asterisktom]

'And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank that is in your own eye?'

We do well to remember that the best of men are men at best, and to read them with discrimination. However, Tozer can be read with tremendous benefit and has helped thousands. He is much to be preferred to many modern writers.

It is, however, much better to read the Puritans than the Mystics.

Steve

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.

 

[Skandelon]

But do you not see the difference between these apples and those oranges? Calvin and Luther did not actively promote those people that they, on unguarded occasion, showed affinity for.

Oh, if I had any measure of interest in doing so I could build a pretty strong guilt by association attack on any one of these men and so could you. I suspect if you found out that any of them didn't hold to the litmus test of your reformed dogma you'd make such efforts.

Tozer, by sad contrast, most certainly does promote their writings. And he bemoans that their voice is lost in today's world.

And now, thanks to the Internet, their writings are now available for everyone. But this is both good and bad.

And since Tozer didn't have internet access you can't know the full extent of his knowledge about all their writings, which is why I suggested you deal with Tozer's actual beliefs. You may have dealt with those in other articles, but I was referring to what you posted here. 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.

It is good for those with discernment. As they read what, say, Julian actually wrote, or what Teresa of Avila wrote, or Hildegard of Bingen, they should be able to say, "Where is any of this in the Bible? Some of this is contrary to Scripture."

I agree that it is good to have discernment, but like I said before even the other often quoted scholars of the reformation (Luther, Augustine, Calvin etc) said things about their OWN views which many, if not most modern reformers, would quickly reject. Do you really believe sprinkling water on an infant's head removes their original sin and secures them for heaven? How is that not just as dangerous as some of the points you attempt to connect through second hand to Tozer?

 

[SolaSaint]

I just want to say when I hear men who admire or glean theology from mystics I get real concerned. I don't care who it is. The mystics to me are the Benny Hinn's of the past. I'm not saying Tozer is bad, but I will now read his works with a little more scrutiny. Thanks again Tom for the post.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not saying Tozer is bad, but I will now read his works with a little more scrutiny. Thanks again Tom for the post.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

Oh, if I had any measure of interest in doing so I could build a pretty strong guilt by association attack on any one of these men and so could you. I suspect if you found out that any of them didn't hold to the litmus test of your reformed dogma you'd make such efforts.

Refomed dogma? Among many of the Reformed I get very low marks for some of my articles. They even called me "pietist", "Arminian, etc. It is quite amusing.

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.

And since Tozer didn't have internet access you can't know the full extent of his knowledge about all their writings, which is why I suggested you deal with Tozer's actual beliefs.

"I believed and therefore have I spoken." What we believe is what we write. Only hypocrites do otherwise. At any rate, the main thrust on my OP was the effect of his quote. Thirdly, the problem for Christians today is not the private thoughts of Tozer, but the published words of Tozer.

You may have dealt with those in other articles, but I was referring to what you posted here. 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.

His context is his life and writings. I took the pains to quote large sections of his writings to show I am doing exactly what you are implying that I am not doing, showing Tozer in context.

But if you want more context, I will oblige with a later post.

I agree that it is good to have discernment, but like I said before even the other often quoted scholars of the reformation (Luther, Augustine, Calvin etc) said things about their OWN views which many, if not most modern reformers, would quickly reject. Do you really believe sprinkling water on an infant's head removes their original sin and secures them for heaven? How is that not just as dangerous as some of the points you attempt to connect through second hand to Tozer?

How can a quote from Tozer be second-hand? And, yes, those infant baptism beliefs can be very dangerous. But this is not a case of either/or, but neither/nor.

 

[asterisktom]

I just want to say when I hear men who admire or glean theology from mystics I get real concerned. I don't care who it is. The mystics to me are the Benny Hinn's of the past. I'm not saying Tozer is bad, but I will now read his works with a little more scrutiny. Thanks again Tom for the post.

Thank you. And I am not insisting that everything I say should be accepted just like that. But if people would just examine in a more critical - Berean - spirit Christianity today would be much more robust, less susceptible to worldly whims and winds of doctrine, as is too often the case.