Tozer quote

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

For those who thinks A. W. Tozer supported the ME heresy try this quote on for size:

"The Lord will not save those whom he cannot command.He will not divide His offices. You cannot believe on a half-Christ. We take Him for what He is - the annointed Saviour and Lord who is King of Kings and Lord of alll Lords! He would not be Who He is if He saved us and called us and chose us without the understanding that he can also guide and control our lives."


A.W.Tozer, I call it Heresy! {Harrisburg, PA:Christian Publications, 1974}, pp. 18-19


Now who still thinks he supports ME?

 

[Rufus_1611]

For those who thinks A. W. Tozer supported the ME heresy try this quote on for size:

"The Lord will not save those whom he cannot command.He will not divide His offices. You cannot believe on a half-Christ. We take Him for what He is - the annointed Saviour and Lord who is King of Kings and Lord of alll Lords! He would not be Who He is if He saved us and called us and chose us without the understanding that he can also guide and control our lives."


A.W.Tozer, I call it Heresy! {Harrisburg, PA:Christian Publications, 1974}, pp. 18-19


Now who still thinks he supports ME?

I neither see how this quote speaks in favor of Kingdom Accountability nor do I see how it speaks in favor of the EIREITAD heresy. What do you believe you have here?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I have heard the ME folks say Tozer supported Me. In this statement he makes it clear that his position is different than what has been espoused here by the ME folks:

1. Christ is currently King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

"the annointed Saviour and Lord who is King of Kings and Lord of alll Lords"

2. You can be saved and not faithful.

"The Lord will not save those whom he cannot command"

"He would not be Who He is if He saved us and called us and chose us without the understanding that he can also guide and control our lives."

Tozer does not support ME

 

[James_Newman]

I have heard the ME folks say Tozer supported Me. In this statement he makes it clear that his position is different than what has been espoused here by the ME folks:

1. Christ is currently King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

"the annointed Saviour and Lord who is King of Kings and Lord of alll Lords"

2. You can be saved and not faithful.

"The Lord will not save those whom he cannot command"

"He would not be Who He is if He saved us and called us and chose us without the understanding that he can also guide and control our lives."

Tozer does not support ME

I might suggest that perhaps Tozer's understanding of scripture changed over time. I'd always figured Tozer for a lordship salvation kind of guy, but the other sermon definitely shows an understanding of the fact that not all Christians walk worthy of their calling. I wouldn't take his statement that Christ is King of kings as a denouncement of a literal thousand year kingdom.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I have heard the ME folks say Tozer supported Me. In this statement he makes it clear that his position is different than what has been espoused here by the ME folks:

1. Christ is currently King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

"the annointed Saviour and Lord who is King of Kings and Lord of alll Lords"

Christ is King of Kings Lord of Lords. Does Tozer say that He is currently reigning on earth? Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Has His Kingdom come on earth?

2. You can be saved and not faithful.

"The Lord will not save those whom he cannot command"

"He would not be Who He is if He saved us and called us and chose us without the understanding that he can also guide and control our lives."

Tozer does not support ME

He can guide and control our lives to the extent that we allow Him to do so. If we want to follow Him in obedience and love, He will encourage us and lead us into sanctified living. If we want to rebel, He will allow it. Either way we choose, He will reward us accordingly.

 

[James_Newman]

I found this review for Tozer's book 'Echoes from Eden' at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0875095666/?tag=baptis04-20

While Tozer may not be one of the popular Christian authors, his works are most worthy of note.

He is concise, he is straightforward, and he is not one to pull punches. I have never yet been disappointed in reading one of his books.

I was most impressed in this book with the treatment he gave to an issue that is largely unattended in modern-time Christianity, the Biblical doctrine of the Christian's accountability to God.

We have been studying this for some time in our church, and I was pleased to find it here recently while reviewing the book. In the last 2 chapters, 'Our Accountability to God: Justified, Saved, but on Trial' and 'Jesus is more than Saviour: Finally He will be Judge', Tozer reintroduces this long-neglected doctrine.

This issue is a most sobering one, and will cause any reasonable-minded Christian to search his life, to focus on holiness and pleasing God, and to look for the glorious appearing of our God and Saviour, Jesus, with anticipation.

We have been led into a view that sees the Christian as saved and comfortable. Perish the thought! God is judge, and He will judge His own people first, according to the Scriptures. Beware of using His grace and mercy as a license.May the Lord use this book in the lives of His people to bring us to spiritual purity and holiness.

We were not the only ones to recognize the import of Tozer's writings. I would venture that Tozer's own words would testify to the fact that he did not have the understanding of accountability early on. Else, why would he lament that it was a neglected doctrine?

 

[Rufus_1611]

I found this review for Tozer's book 'Echoes from Eden' at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0875095666/?tag=baptis04-20

We were not the only ones to recognize the import of Tozer's writings. I would venture that Tozer's own words would testify to the fact that he did not have the understanding of accountability early on. Else, why would he lament that it was a neglected doctrine?

Nice find brother.

 

[Steven2006]

I attended an Alliance Church for some time when I was younger. Tozer's views and writing's were a big influence and popular in the Alliance Church. He published much of his views in the Alliance magazine. I never heard of ME back then let alone anyone in the Church ever thinking such a thing. I also have about a half dozen of Tozers books, and never once have gotten the impression he supported any like ME. I think this is a false accusation, and that some people are just using Tozers popularity to support their ME theories by just latching on to his name. I think that is a horrible thing to do. Tozer was a man that felt it was important to put to paper things he felt needed to be voiced. If he really believed this nonsense he would have made it very clear, he was a very articulate man. It just isn't there, so the ME people need to just leave it alone. He did not believe this.

 

[npetreley]

I attended an Alliance Church for some time when I was younger. Tozer's views and writing's were a big influence and popular in the Alliance Church. He published much of his views in the Alliance magazine. I never heard of ME back then let alone anyone in the Church ever thinking such a thing. I also have about a half dozen of Tozers books, and never once have gotten the impression he supported any like ME. I think this is a false accusation, and that some people are just using Tozers popularity to support their ME theories by just latching on to his name. I think that is a horrible thing to do. Tozer was a man that felt it was important to put to paper things he felt needed to be voiced. If he really believed this nonsense he would have made it very clear, he was a very articulate man. It just isn't there, so the ME people need to just leave it alone. He did not believe this.

I'm not a big fan of Tozer. I agree he was articulate, but some of what I've read came off as legalistic and poorly reasoned. To be fair, some was quite good, too. But I agree 100% with your sentiment that the ME folks should not pretend to latch on to Tozer as one of their own. Tozer certainly did not deserve that.

 

[James_Newman]

I attended an Alliance Church for some time when I was younger. Tozer's views and writing's were a big influence and popular in the Alliance Church. He published much of his views in the Alliance magazine. I never heard of ME back then let alone anyone in the Church ever thinking such a thing. I also have about a half dozen of Tozers books, and never once have gotten the impression he supported any like ME. I think this is a false accusation, and that some people are just using Tozers popularity to support their ME theories by just latching on to his name. I think that is a horrible thing to do. Tozer was a man that felt it was important to put to paper things he felt needed to be voiced. If he really believed this nonsense he would have made it very clear, he was a very articulate man. It just isn't there, so the ME people need to just leave it alone. He did not believe this.

He was very articulate when he wrote this:

We are not living in a period of God's expressed judgment at this time, and that is why man thinks he can get away with almost everything now...But this is a period of probation...This period in which we live is not the trial - it is the preparation for the trial. This is not the last examination - this is getting ready for the examination.

I remind you that this whole doctrine has been long obscured, but our Lord Jesus set it forth fully in Matthew 25. Jesus tells the story there of the man who went into a far country and before leaving, called in his three servants. He gave them talents to be held in trust during his absence...Then he said, 'I will be coming back - remember that I have delivered unto you my goods'...Consider that while he was gone they could have done just as they pleased. They could have done what they pleased with the responsibility. But two of them realized that they were actually on probation while the third did not...The master said to the first two, 'You have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many.' The third servant, who did not realize that he would actually be on trial during the master's absence, was cast out as an unprofitable servant.

What are you going to do with that passage? I know the ultra-dispensationalist just gets rid of it by saying, 'Matthew does not belong to us in the church.' Well, I would just as soon believe the modernist when he says Isaiah does not belong to us as to believe the dispensationalist who tells us that Matthew does not belong to us.

He believed the warning of being cast out as an unprofitable servant applied to believers. That much is clear. What his understanding of being cast out is, who can say. I'd hate to think Tozer would be the kind of man who wouldn't preach something simply because it is unpopular, but the fact is many who would be in agreement with our teaching will not say it plainly from the pulpit because they get treated the same way we do here on the BB.

 

[Steven2006]

He was very articulate when he wrote this:



He believed the warning of being cast out as an unprofitable servant applied to believers. That much is clear. What his understanding of being cast out is, who can say. I'd hate to think Tozer would be the kind of man who wouldn't preach something simply because it is unpopular, but the fact is many who would be in agreement with our teaching will not say it plainly from the pulpit because they get treated the same way we do here on the BB.

He didn't believe believers would be cast out for 1000 years and then join Jesus. He never preached that, never taught that. You need to stop implying he did. He did preach against easy believism.

 

[Rufus_1611]

He didn't believe believers would be cast out for 1000 years and then join Jesus. He never preached that, never taught that. You need to stop implying he did. He did preach against easy believism.

He believed the servants were Christians (was opposed to hyper-dispensationalism saying Matthew doesn't apply to Christians) and that the unprofitable servant gets cast into outer darkness. What his definition of outer darkness was I am unaware, but I have ordered this Echoes to Eden book in the prayer that it is revealed.

 

[James_Newman]

He didn't believe believers would be cast out for 1000 years and then join Jesus. He never preached that, never taught that. You need to stop implying he did. He did preach against easy believism.

Are you denying that he said what I quoted? What did he mean when he said

Consider that while he was gone they could have done just as they pleased.

That sounds more like easy-believism than lordship salvation. I suspect that as Tozer became more in-tune with the doctrine of accountability, the doctrine of free-grace (easy believism as you call it) became less of a problem for him.

 

[Hope of Glory]

If he really believed this nonsense he would have made it very clear, he was a very articulate man. It just isn't there, so the ME people need to just leave it alone. He did not believe this.

Then perhaps you could clear it up for us and tell us where the outer darkness that saved people are sent to is.

 

[Steven2006]

Are you denying that he said what I quoted? What did he mean when he said

That sounds more like easy-believism than lordship salvation. I suspect that as Tozer became more in-tune with the doctrine of accountability, the doctrine of free-grace (easy believism as you call it) became less of a problem for him.

Here is a quote from Tozer that addresses your post better than I could:


Savior But Not Lord?
In the New Testament salvation and discipleship are so closely related as to be indivisible. They are not identical, but as with Siamese twins they are joined by a tie which can be severed only at the price of death.
Yet they are being severed in evangelical circles today. In the working creed of the average Christian salvation is held to be immediate and automatic, while discipleship is thought to be something optional which the Christian may delay indefinitely or never accept at all.

It is not uncommon to hear Christian workers urging seekers to accept Christ now and leave moral and social questions to be decided later. The notion is that obedience and discipleship are unrelated to salvation. We may be saved by believing a historic fact about Jesus Christ (that He died for our sins and rose again) and applying this to our personal situation. The whole biblical concept of Lordship and obedience is completely absent from the mind of the seeker. He needs help, and Christ is the very one, even the only one, who can furnish it, so he “takes” Him as his personal Savior. The idea of His Lordship is completely ignored.

Prayer
Lord, I bow to Your lordship in all of my life. Make me fully Your disciple and a discipler of others for Your sake.
Scripture
Then he said to them all: 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.'
— Luke 9:23
Thought
Can we receive Christ as Savior and deny His lordship over us? Surely there is room to grow in our understanding of who He is and what it means to folow Him in daily life. But can He be our Savior without being our Lord?

 

[James_Newman]

Oh, I know he wrote such things. I would just desire to go back and see when he wrote that, and when he wrote the other sermon, and see how his understanding of salvation matured, whether it was from a position closer to ours toward this one, or the other way around. I have heard kingdom preachers state that they had wished they could un-preach sermons they had already given. I would agree with everything Tozer just said when applied to salvation at the judgment seat of Christ.

 

[Steven2006]

As to everyone else. I can't prove a negative. I am not going to keep trying to answer every question you ask based on you picking apart one of thousands of words Tozer has published because you think in might infer something. it is the responsibility of those that make the claim to submit the proof. Show a quote where he supports ME or refrain from making those claims. the burden of proof is on you. I think it is reprehensible to claim he believes in ME when Tozer has never preached that ever.

 

[Steven2006]

Oh, I know he wrote such things. I would just desire to go back and see when he wrote that, and when he wrote the other sermon, and see how his understanding of salvation matured, whether it was from a position closer to ours toward this one, or the other way around. I have heard kingdom preachers state that they had wished they could un-preach sermons they had already given. I would agree with everything Tozer just said when applied to salvation at the judgment seat of Christ.

This is getting silly. If I post something Tozer wrote that you don't agree with you are going to assume, he must have changed his mind. Yet even though you can't post anything where he clearly speaks of ME, you assume he must have believed that. There is really not much one can say about that reasoning.

 

[James_Newman]

As to everyone else. I can't prove a negative. I am not going to keep trying to answer every question you ask based on you picking apart one of thousands of words Tozer has published because you think in might infer something. it is the responsibility of those that make the claim to submit the proof. Show a quote where he supports ME or refrain from making those claims. the burden of proof is on you. I think it is reprehensible to claim he believes in ME when Tozer has never preached that ever.

I just want one brave soul to admit that Tozer thought that warning Matthew 25 was something believers needed to be concerned with.

 

[James_Newman]

This is getting silly. If I post something Tozer wrote that you don't agree with you are going to assume, he must have changed his mind. Yet even though you can't post anything where he clearly speaks of ME, you assume he must have believed that. There is really not much one can say about that reasoning.

You can hardly presume that a man's understanding of scripture remains fixed once he starts putting a pen to paper and signing his name to it (although for some that may be true). I don't think I can show you anywhere he clearly speaks of ME. But he does clearly speak of 'probation' for believers and judgment to come and being cast away. That speaks volumes in itself, because it flies in the face of modern feel-good theology.