Anda di halaman 1dari 55

THE UNBIBLICAL MYSTICISM OF A. W.

TOZER

www.sciencephilosophyreligion.com

A.W. Tozer Reconsidered


Tom Riggle This is the first of several articles on A.W. Tozer, his life and teaching. It is part of a projected larger series of studies on several teachers of the last century or so who, however else they differ, have one thing in common: Devaluing of the Word of God and of the simplicity of the Gospel. To be sure, Tozer is right on the money in some of his assessments of the 20th (now 21st) century church. But we cannot simply ignore other harmful tenets to be seen in much of Tozers works. Someone has written me recently asking why I should feel it necessary to name names and attack persons? The answer is quite simply that these very names have become an impervious refuge for some of the most obstinate errors in our church. We 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 (see below) and give accurate quotes, I get defensive letters from some ... and enthusiastic Amens from others. So this is why I attack Tozer. I dont hate the man. I love the Truth he himself - albeit unwittingly - attacks. Please consider this article if you are still unconvinced. Introduction I am sure I am not the only one here who has been much influenced by Aiden W. Tozer. His devotional writings have been praised by a wide spectrum of appreciative believers within Christendom, myself included. Recently however my praise for this writer has been replaced with a growing awareness of a tendency in his teaching, a major tendency, to turn his readers away from God-appointed means of sanctification. The Word of God is not only our message of salvation; it is also our method of salvation. Lastly, it is our Man of salvation - He is the Word of God, the God-Man Christ Jesus. In all of these - and in a few other areas, as well - Tozer comes up short, as we shall see. A.W. Tozer is a revered authority for many, and to attack him almost seems to be an attack on sanctification and holiness itself. But, with him as well as ourselves, we need to always apply the tests of Scripture on the teachers of Scripture. None of us are immune from this necessary crossexamination. That is what these articles are about. If you find that my lines here spark in you a desire to write back to me, well, great! But if you are all set to defend your man, dont shoot from the hip. Quote from the Book. I am certainly open to correction. Mystic Sidetracks Our authors indebtedness to the Catholic mystics of the Middle Ages becomes apparent to anyone who studies Tozer. He often does not bother to divulge precisely where his quotes are from, though whether by design or intentional neglect is hard to ascertain. Teresa of Avila, Nicholas of Cusa, Meister Eckhardt, the anonymous penman of The Cloud of Unknowing, 1

and several more, are called as testimonies for his pressing for the need for a closer walk with God. But who would argue the need for this closer walk? Not us. What we disagree with is the calling in of these dubious authorities when the Scriptures are a much better means - in fact the only sure source - that we need to have Christ formed in us. To the Word and to the testimony!, Isiaiah warns us (Isa. 8:20) If they speak not according to this word there is no light in them. To this we can add Acts 17:11. Later in this article we will take a closer look at Tozers favorite authorities, and see if they are to be trusted. Many do not know much about these mystics and monks that Tozer references. If they did, their respect for them - and for anyone who quotes them approvingly - would lessen considerably. Tozer observes: That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its bearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die. - A.W. Tozer, Man: The Dwelling Place Of God, 1946, Published 1966 Yes, he has some good points, yet his approving quotes of mystics constitutes this same friendly parallel between the ways of God ... and men. Nicolas, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and many others of Tozers saints were active supporters of the anti-Christian papal system, and of the works-related method of salvation. Are they considered holy just because they speak of sanctification, Christ and heaven? The Devil does as much. Tozer bemoaned the fact that these writers are virtually unknown in modern times. In this we agree - if they were more thoroughly known then Tozers quotes can be shown for what they really are - passages taken largely out of context from a system that has much more of the Counter-Reformation than the Reformation. And his quoting of these mystics is more frequent than you might expect. In his slim volume, Knowledge of the Holy, for instance, there are at least eighteen quotes that are to be found. An Open Secret or a Second Work of Grace? An additional problem with his views on sanctification is that he downplays doctrine. This is from his Root of the Righteous: Bible Taught or Spirit Taught? It may shock some readers to suggest that there is a difference between being Bible taught and being Spirit taught. Nevertheless it is so. Although Tozers point - especially the very next paragraph - is valid, there is indeed a false dichotomy being set up here. It is not Bible taught or Spirit taught. The Spirit of Christ unlocks, teaches and applies the Word of Christ to us. They shall all be taught of God (John 6:45) assumes this very growth in knowledge. The Holy Spirit will not teach of things other than Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life.

Tozer goes on: It is altogether possible to be instructed in the rudiments of the faith and still have no real understanding of the whole thing. And it is possible to go on to become expert in Bible doctrine and not have spiritual illumination, with the result that a veil remains over the mind, preventing it from apprehending the truth in its spiritual essence. This is all true, yet, this is not the whole story. Also I believe we should instinctively distrust when someone who is quick to use the word doctrine in a limitedly pejorative sense, as Tozer often does throughout his works. This should become obvious as we look further into Tozers words. I am a Bible Christian and if an archangel with a wingspread as broad as a constellation shining like the sun were to come and offer me some new truth, Id ask him for a reference. If he could not show me where it is found in the Bible, I would bow out and say, Im awfully sorry, you dont bring any references with you. But the problem is not with the readily identifiable archangel. It is with those subjective experiences. This is where we must unflinchingly apply the standard of Gods Word. It is also with our choice of spiritual teachers. Tozer did not ask for spiritual references when he effusively praised the ecstatic utterances of Julian of Norwich, nor of the insights of that master of the inner life (his words), Evelyn Underhill, the ecumenicist mystic. If he would have asked for proper Scriptural backing from them, and found them wanting, he would have saved himself much confusion - and the church much polluting error that is now hard to eradicate. When I first decided to wrote on Tozer I wondered if I wasnt just being bitter and overly faultfinding. But the more I study him, the more I see him as a clear danger for Christianity. His influence is wide and he is accepted by a broad spectrum of religionists (including, but not restricted to, Christians). His doctrine and practice are so often overlooked by many other wise astute Bereans who cry Wolf! at the same infractions in more recognizable enemies. Tozer and the Word Perhaps the best single mark to judge someones teaching is their pronouncements on the importance of the Word of God. If a writer is strongly committed to holding the Word of God as being central, then we already have a hopeful indication of orthodoxy in that teacher. At the very least we can hold that writer to his own professed adherence to Scripture. However Tozer is somewhat hard to pin down here because he is not consistent on this central topic. In some places (like in the first quotation below) he seems to hold a high regard for the Bible, yet in others (the very next quote) he all but negates this. So, on the issue of the Word of Life, Tozer speaks against Tozer. Two passages (emphases added) from his The Pursuit of God are particularly helpful in illustrating this; the first from the preface, the second from the very first chapter:

Sound Bible exposition is an imperative in the Church of the Living God. Without it no church can be a New Testament church in any strict meaning of that term. But exposition may be carried on in such way as to leave the hearers devoid of any true spiritual nourishment whatever. For it is not mere words that nourish the soul, but God Himself, and unless and until the hearers find God in personal experience they are not the better for having heard the truth. The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts. The first statement is the best. It is basically a restatement of what the Word itself asserts about itself. And - if we did not know where Tozer will be going with the arguments - we wouldnt find fault either with the Bible being referred elliptically as mere words or that it is not an end in itself. After all, the church of our time, just as in Tozers, suffers greatly in many quarters from a lifeless literalism that clutches to the killing letter of mechanical compliances. While David taught that God desires truth in the inward parts (Psalm 51) many followers settle into mere superficial sanctity (that is, false). Tozer deserves high marks for diagnosing the disease. It is his cure that is the cause of concern. That brings us to his second passage, from the first chapter entitled Following Hard After God. Again, emphasis is mine. I also numbered these five paragraphs for ease of reference. Special attention is drawn to the first and last paragraph: 1. If we would find God amid all the religious externals we must first determine to find Him, and then proceed in the way of simplicity. Now as always God discovers Himself to babes and hides Himself in thick darkness from the wise and the prudent. We must simplify our approach to Him. We must strip down to essentials (and they will be found to be blessedly few). We must put away all effort to impress, and come with the guileless candor of childhood. If we do this, without doubt God will quickly respond. 2. When religion has said its last word, there is little that we need other than God Himself. The evil habit of seeking God-and effectively prevents us from finding God in full revelation. In the and lies our great woe. If we omit the and we shall soon find God, and in Him we shall find that for which we have all our lives been secretly longing. 3. We need not fear that in seeking God only we may narrow our lives or restrict the motions of our expanding hearts. The opposite is true. We can well afford to make God our All, to concentrate, to sacrifice the many for the One. 4. The author of the quaint old English classic, The Cloud of Unknowing, teaches us how to do this. [Not the Bible? Hmmm] Lift up thine heart unto God with a meek stirring of love; and mean Himself, and none of His goods. And thereto, look thee loath to think on aught but God Himself. So that nought work in thy wit, nor in thy will, but only God Himself. This is the work of the soul that most pleaseth God. 5. Again, he recommends that in prayer we practice a further stripping down of everything, even of our theology. For it sufficeth enough, a naked intent direct unto God without any other cause than Himself. Yet underneath all his thinking lay the broad foundation of New Testament truth, for he explains that by Himself he means God that made thee, and bought thee, and that 4

graciously called thee to thy degree. And he is all for simplicity: If we would have religion lapped and folden in one word, for that thou shouldst have better hold thereupon, take thee but a little word of one syllable: for so it is better than of two, for even the shorter it is the better it accordeth with the work of the Spirit. And such a word is this word GOD or this word LOVE. The entire passage of five paragraphs has been kept intact so that none might accuse me of selectively making my case by cherry-picking quotes out of context. In paragraph 1 we read of the need of simplifying our approach to God, and of stripping down to essentials. Now according to Tozers first quote, in the introduction, the Word of God is an essential, yet now the whole issue is in doubt as we read the last paragraph 5: We must, so teaches our guide (the nameless mystic writer of Cloud of Unknowing), strip away from ourselves ... even of our theology! Well, you might caution me, he only refers to superfluous or bad theology. Lets not overreact. I wish that were so. Lets continue. God is all for simplicity. What kind of simplicity? Why none other than monosyllabic simplicity: The word God and the word Love. Do you see what is going on here? Contrast with this single-word simplicity the inspired word of God: For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Acts 20:27 Paul tells the Ephesians that he taught them all of Scripture. Nowhere does he even hint at the hocus-pocus theology of Tozers. With Tozer doctrine is being subtly, but with deadly effect, devalued. The theology we are to strip away, or at least to put at arms length when we pray, is the very Word that we need to approach Him as we pray. We need to always be aware of who God is - and that is theology, the knowledge of God in the form of words that He has revealed to us. What does Scripture say? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also, 1 Cor. 14:15. By the way, Tozer is being true to his mystical roots, especially those mystics who came after the Roman Catholic Counter-reformation, when he so emphasizes God-knowledge as a wholly (not holy) separate way of approaching Him than through that Word which God Himself gave us for that very purpose. He is being true to them, but false to the Word of God. The same God who said, I am the Way, the Truth, the Life, also said Thy Word is truth. Consider these passages as well: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim. 3:15 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim. 3:16 5

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mark 12:30. Jesus answered the would-be mystic, the proto-Mariolater who cried out, Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you! with Blessed rather are those who hear the Word of God and obey it. (Luke 11:27- 28) Our love and devotion to God is always to be according to the Word of God, as well as corrected and strengthened by the Word of God. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.: Mark 12:30. In this passage above the Word of God is being set below the Word of men. Who is the writer of The Cloud of Unknowing? We dont really know. Neither does it matter. Yet in a chapter about following after God Tozer puts this writer above the Bible! Nowhere in this whole chapter is there a single passage pointing to the Word of God as our means of knowing God, of growing in Him and, yes, of praying to Him. We grow in grace as we use the means of grace. Our main means of grace, day in and day out, are the Scriptures which can make us wise unto salvation. The Word is our lamp, our bread, our armor, our weapon of righteousness, our mirror and the sword that pierces us (Heb. 4:12) much deeper than we are comfortable with. All of this is missing in Tozers instruction of how to approach God.

Source: http://asterisktom.xanga.com/528878026/aw-tozer-reconsidered/

Tozer and Calvinism


Tom Riggle
This is the second of several articles on A.W. Tozer, his life and teaching.

It is mildly surprising that the writings of A.W. Tozer are featured in Reformed publications and websites. I say mildly because I can partly understand the attraction for using his words: 1. He accurately states several of the crying needs of the modern church: The need for superficial, mediocre, robotic believers to rediscover or should I say find for the first time -the authentic pulse of true worship. 2. He taps into the conscientious Christians nagging suspicion that his/her walk with God is not what it should be. 3. He often has a way to state concisely and without Latin! his main points a talent that often eludes Reformed writers! Here are some of his pithy gems: What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him. These are some of the reasons that Reformed authors like J.I. Packer, Montomery Boice and others; and many Reformed websites have called on Tozer to hammer down their own points. I also have used a quote of his on my site (but have since excised it). So Tozer is useful to many because he is eminently quotable. However I believe that if his writings were more closely examined he would not seem so readily serviceable to Reformed Christianity. He often gets the credit of being somewhat Reformed, but this too bears closer consideration. And for this we can do no better than to quote his own words, letting the reader make his or her own appraisal. The sentences above are sparklingly orthodox and perfectly useful. The fault in Tozer lies not primarily in these gems, but in the matrix from which they come from the rest of Tozers writings. These reveal a different belief-set than perhaps many who quote shorter passages of Tozers are aware of. Free-will Presuppositions Tozer is a thoroughgoing advocate of the free-will of man in choosing God. His last published book, The Knowledge of the Holy, has a second-to-last chapter entitled The Sovereignty of God. What better place for us to find out where he stands on the doctrines of grace? Halfway through the chapter we have the following: 1

Another real problem created by the doctrine of the divine sovereignty has to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he can not exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him? This is largely the same sort of response of, say, Norman Geisler or Dave Hunt. These are not so much questions are they are almost credal self-evident statements, basic Armininan suppositions. These basic presuppositions, held in common by Geisler, Hunt and Tozer, are: 1. Mankind, of course, has a native ability to choose God and salvation (free-will), and 2. Moral responsibility necessarily implies freedom of choice (This is the battleground of such books as Luthers Freedom of the Will). 3. Hindering of this free-will on the part of God means, not that God is sovereign, but that man is a mere puppet, or robot (Geisler). Has Tozer risen above the usual level of mainstream free-will Arminianism? So far, not at all. Continuing: The attempt to answer these questions [those three questions raised in the passage above] has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other. Here is, so far, the clearest testimony of Tozers view of what is the heart of our Reformation truth: It is mere partisan theology. We Calvinists are in one camp. They (Arminius, along with his followers) are in the other. Then Tozer follows that worn path of argument, assumed disinterestedness: He distances himself as being removed from both parties when actually he speaks and reasons from well within the Arminian camp. This tact is the very same one that Erasmus took against Luther and, to bring it down to our times, Hunt and Geisler took against James White. They all, like Tozer here, attempt to rescue Gods sovereignty while keeping mans sovereignty intact. But there is not enough room in the universe for two sovereignties! Tozer continues, explaining how, in his mind, Gods sovereignty can be reconciled to mans free-will: Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills 2

it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, What doest thou? Mans will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. Reading this, it is astonishing that any Reformed teacher would see any kindred credibility in him. The Bible is quite clear that man has no ability nor desire to choose good over evil. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer. 13:23 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Romans 3:11 Tozer, like Erasmus before him, seems to sense the immensity of the problem before him, so he argues merely that man has limited freedom. But, as Luther pointed out to Erasmus, this does not solve his problem, but exacerbates it. Back to Tozer: Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of sovereignty. On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with mans freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of Gods sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfilment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being. But this is an inadequate illustration. Surely the most important truth of history is totally absent here: There are, after all, two destinations, not one. If we must use such a metaphor, than there ought to be two ships. Although Tozers metaphor of one destination does fit the theology of some of his inner life mentors, I cannot believe that was Tozers view. I find it disturbing that his illustration does not include any place for those who end up in Hell. This is not a minor detail. An illustration that attempts to set forth Gods purpose for mankind cannot pass over that. Some of the details of his scenario are wrong, as well. We are in chains. In fact until the Captain speaks words of life to us (John 6:63, 66; Eze. 16:6; 37:10) we are corpses in chains. 3

Our actions are determined by decrees though we are still responsible for our actions chosen. Yes, we are free to do those things Tozer mentioned by Tozer: Eat, sleep, play, talk (or, as Luther says, marry a wife, milk a cow). But we are not able to talk to our Captain, let alone learn from him where we are going ... or really care. In other words, we are able to pursue mundane practices of this life and call that freedom and all the while be oblivious to that whole other world that gives life to this one. Its not a coincidence that those who seek to reconcile sovereignty with free-will resort to illustrations. It is because the Bible, aside from the superficial aid of the whoever verses, offers no encouragement to their doctrine at all. Scripture in fact is quite unequivocal: Without Me you can do nothing. John 15:5 Unless you are born again, you cannot even see the Kingdom of God. John 3:3 Salvation is of the Lord. Jonah 2:9

Source: http://asterisktom.xanga.com/529794884/tozer-and-calvinism/

Tozer and the Order of Salvation


Tom Riggle
This is the third of several articles on A.W. Tozer, his life and teaching.

One of the more popular of Tozers writings is a short chapter from The Pursuit of God entitled The Speaking Voice (hereafter TSV). In this piece a distinction is set up between the written Word and the spoken Word of God. This distinction is not a Biblical one, but a necessary one for him to make. A study of Tozers background and influences is helpful to understand his interest in making much of this assumed dichotomy between a speaking and a written voice. But that is not the focus of this article. The issue to examine here is Tozers perceived order of salvation (Ordo Salutis). 1 Well, you might ask, who cares? Really, you should. This seemingly technical issue is actually quite loaded with implications that have a direct bearing on our understanding of man, the nature of God, and His means of saving us. There are two erroneous assumption that Tozer makes in TSV. Actually there are more than two but these two have the most to do with the subject of this article. 1. The first assumption is one that is common to many Christians today, that Christs atonement was provisionally universal, 2 that Christ died for everyone and not just, as the Reformed believer affirms, for the elect. 2. The second assumption is that God is speaking in the same way to everyone and anyone is able if he only wills to listen to the voice of God. But this is contrary to John 10. Only Gods sheep hear. Tozers The Speaking Voice, then, postulates two universals; 1. a provisional universal atonement and 2. a universal voice (and ability to hear that voice). And this is where Tozer fails in his order of salvation; he has the wrong foundation, the assumption that everyone is hearing this universal voice. To be sure everyone does hear the voice (if we can take this from Psa. 19) of natural revelation. But not everyone can hear the voice of the Shepherd. My sheep hear My voice. John 10:27. The context of John 10 tacitly assumes that there are some who just cannot hear the Shepherd. But this has no room in Tozers soteriology, as we see in two paragraphs of TSV especially.

Ordo Salutis (order of salvation) has to do with which step in salvation came first, and, more importantly, it has to do with who made the first move in our salvation. The wide spectrum of modern Christianity insists that any and every saved person had to make that first move: He needed to reach out in faith to God. Reformed theology, by contrast, maintains that that the first move is Gods (Eph. 1:5, 11; John 1:13; 15:5; 1 John 4:19). This issue of Ordo Salutis is not a mere tedious technicality like the riddle Which came first: The chicken or the egg? It actually answers the question To whom do we give the glory for our salvation: God or ourselves? 2 Provisional universal atonement, is the modern soteriological tenet that is directly opposed to the Biblical particular atonement (John 17:6- 10) but it is not to be confused with the outright heretical universalism, the belief that everyone will eventually be saved.

Says Tozer: -----------------------------------------------------------------------Whoever will listen will hear the speaking Heaven. This is definitely not the hour when men take kindly to an exhortation to listen, for listening is not today a part of popular religion. We are at the opposite end of the pole from there. Religion has accepted the monstrous heresy that noise, size, activity and bluster make a man dear to God. But we may take heart. To a people caught in the tempest of the last great conflict God says, Be still, and know that I am God, and still He says it, as if He means to tell us that our strength and safety lie not in noise but in silence. -----------------------------------------------------------------------By the way, It is not surprising that Tozer plucks this particular phrase out of its context and makes its say what it really doesnt. The original context of Psalm 46:10 from whence this is taken is to cease striving (KJV be still) and know that I am God..The striving is not of a person who is at odds with himself, or who just needs to have a quiet time. The striving here, according to the context (see verses 8 and 9), is active enmity against God and His people. So, in the verse Tozer uses, the call is not for a quiet time but surrender. Quit warring against God. Matthew Henry paraphrases and expounds on verse ten thus: Let his enemies be still, and threaten no more, but know it, to their terror, that he is God, one infinitely above them, and that will certainly be too hard for them; let them rage no more, for it is all in vain But Tozer stands by his misinterpretion of Psalm 46:10 because it fits his foundation: that we can prepare for God to save us. It is important for Tozer to have this be about preparative quietude because he is an admitted synergist when it comes to salvation. He needs to make room for and find authorizing verses for preparatory cooperation on the part of the willing wouldbe Christian. Back to Tozers second paragraph: -----------------------------------------------------------------------It is important that we get still to wait on God. And it is best that we get alone, preferably with our Bible outspread before us. Then if we will we may draw near to God and begin to hear Him speak to us in our hearts. I think for the average person the progression will be something like this: First a sound as of a Presence walking in the garden. Then a voice, more intelligible, but still far from clear. Then the happy moment when the Spirit begins to illuminate the Scriptures, and that which had been only a sound, or at best a voice, now becomes an intelligible word, warm and intimate and clear as the word of a dear friend. Then will come life and light, and best of all, ability to see and rest in and embrace Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord and All. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here is the order of salvation per Tozer: First of all and this is an important detail he is referring to an unsaved person here. His average person is an unsaved one. If an unsaved person just follows these prescribed steps, so he assures us, he will do well. 1. Getting still (a misuse of Scripture already see above) 2. If we will but of course, we know that God works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. And we know that no one seeks God (= no one is willing). So already Tozer is describing a creature who doesnt exist. 3. Sound of a presence in the garden? This is subjective in the extreme. How does this work out in shoe leather? When we are describing our salvation we cannot afford to be poetic or vague. The Biblical allusion is to an historical event for Adam and Eve, but it communicates nothing to us. 4. Then a more intelligible voice This idea of progressive awareness of God is common with mystics but it is not in the Word of God. But more on this later. 5. Then the happy moment when the Spirit begins to illuminate the Scriptures...and...an intelligible word. 6. Then will come life and light, and best of all, ability to see and rest in and embrace Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. So, in light of this last step, where do we place, say, John 3:3? Except a man be born again he cannot even see the Kingdom of God. In other words, unless we have sight (Tozers step 6) we cannot even see (and move toward) God (step 3- 5). Thus #6 is a prerequisite for 3- 5. It is all out of order. This whole notion of progressive revelation on a personal scale is largely foreign to Scripture. God opened Lydias heart to listen to Pauls preaching. Many times, in fact, salvation in Scripture is quite abrupt. In no place is it the way Tozer imagines. So his advice on how to approach God is bad. The saved do not need it. The unsaved cannot put it into practice. ----------------

The Word of God versus the Voice of God On the face of it Tozers Speaking Voice seems to lift up the Word of God, but it is actually the voice of God something different altogether that he puts front and center. The danger of this is not immediately apparent, perhaps, but it is a real one. Some people will read this Tozer article in a charitable half-light and will thus make these words mean what they prefer for him to have written. But anyone who reads impartially is left with an alarming conclusion: Tozer is encouraging trust in something other than the Word of God. In TSV Tozer speaks of two types of word: the Word of God and the speaking voice. The speaking voice, says Tozer, gives meaning and life to the written word, the Bible. This is true, yet it is not the whole story. In this article Tozer builds up a contrast between these two words, in order to emphasize the second one, the speaking voice. This is the voice that we need to listen to attentively, insists our author. But here is the problem and the very great danger: That speaking voice is a subjective one. It has to be. How can anyone be assured that the voice they are hearing at any one time is from God, from Satan, from self, or from the other side of thin apartment walls? He cant. But here is the good news: Though Tozer says we are to strain (be still) to hear this inner voice, God says, by way of contrast, we are to read His Word, believe it, teach it, live it. If we do this, we will do well. We dont have to worry about whether this is Gods Word. We know that it is. We dont have to strain over subjective voices. We have the blessed objective Word of Life! And we dont have to agonize over its meaning. Much of the Bible is quite clear. As we obey what we know, God opens up our understanding to know more, obey more, love Him more (John 7:17; Heb. 5;14). Tozers prescription for holiness, by comparison were it taken to logical conclusion would create self-centered, spiritually starved holier-than-thou mystics. This is inevitable since the trend of his teaching, not just in this article but throughout his works, is to denigrate the objective Word the only Bread and Meat that gives us Life, John 6:51- 57, 63- 68 and to train his adherents to be experience seekers. Yet if we lose connection to the Head we starve to death spiritually, Col. 2:18- 19. ------------------

Source: http://asterisktom.xanga.com/530684389/tozer--order-of-salvation/

Tozers Teaching: Dangerous Tenets


Tom Riggle A Conversation on his Teaching Examining especially chapter five of his I Call it Heresy
This is the fourth of several articles on A.W. Tozer, his life and teaching.

Please note first of all that Heresy is the word in Tozers own title, not mine. The following is from an Internet discussion with a colleague on A.W. Tozer (name changed). His (B.R.s) comments are in gray. Tozers are in green italics. My comments are in blue, my older comments light blue. Thank you, B.R, for taking the time in response to my post. I will take it in the spirit intended. I certainly am aware that I can take things personally, as in my being rebuffed both at the Highway and Mountain Retreat. I cant pretend that I am impervious to that. So, look you implied, I need to examine my critiques in the light of that. I also need to perhaps be clearer that it is not only Tozer that I am attacking but a wider, prevalent mindset of like-minded teachers (Oswald Chambers, Selwyn Hughes, etc). On the other hand, I hope you will consider some of the things brought up below. I do believe that we see the importance of this issue differently, and perhaps we also differ on why this is important. Most of this post has to do with the chapter in Tozer that you mentioned. I used that one since you brought it up. I thought I had read it (but under a different title, I Talk Back to the Devil Studies on 1 Peter), but I found it online and reread that chapter. Since it was one you recommended - with some reservations - I thought it would be a good source to bring out some of his beliefs using what is considered to be one of his better chapters. But first the other comments. I had written: > I plan to have a series of articles on A.W. Tozer, a writer whose > credibility is greatly bolstered by Reformed writers who quote him > but - apparently - dont read him. Looking beyond the pleasing > quotes, we find considerably less than what we had come to expect > in the actual teachings of Tozer. Yes, he has good comments on much > of what the church needs. B.R. answered: Reformed writers do recognise that Tozer wasnt reformed, just as they do recognise that John Wesley and D.L. Moody were not reformed. Yet like you said in your last sentence above, these latter do sometimes have good comments on much of what the church needs. I respectfully differ on this. 1. Some Reformed writers view him as almost Reformed. 2. Others view his stance as being irrelevant. Yet good comments on what the church needs need to 1

be followed up with Biblical solutions, else they only exacerbate the problem. By quoting Tozer, implied consent to Tozers solutions is given. Yet Tozers solutions for the problems of our church (see below) are not Biblical - since they marginalize the Bible - , and are in fact dangerous for the church. So just because Reformed writers quote Tozer does not mean that they endorse or approve his questionable theology. They simply want to give credit where credit is due in some of his views. His theology is not only questionable. In many instances it is severely damaging. There are parallels between his theology and Pelagius. It is ironic that some today who speak so well of Augustine would at the same time make allowance for one whose theology was anathema to Augustine. ... Just because, Reformed Christians quote Tozer does not mean that they believe Christianity should be based on sound bites. Quoting Christian writers, reformed or not, has never been seen as a subsitute for sound theology. > Tozer articles: > Tozer and Calvinism > : Why is there this blind spot among so many Reformed writers > concerning Tozer and Calvinism? Look past the quotes to the actual > teachings of this minor prophet. Tom, I dont think there really is a blind spot regarding Tozer. Some Reformed Christians simply appreciate *some* of the things he has written and nothing more. I appreciate chapter 5 of his book, I Call It Heresy! where he defends Lordship salvation. Sure they are reformed writers who give a much better presentation of that topic (e.g. Kenneth Gentry and John MacArthur), but Tozers book is a good tool for those in his theological camp to be taught that topic (who would otherwise shun reformed writers). The last sentence there makes it seem that you see Tozer as being somewhat Reformed, B.R. My understanding is that, there is no otherwise involved: Rather, those who read this fifth chapter, as I just did again, have had no exposure to Reformed theology. BTW, those who want to check out the chapter that was referred to can read it, as well as the rest of I Call It Heresy! here: www.theboc.com I thought it might be good to take a closer look at this chapter. First Tozer writes about the authority of the Word of God, a good start: So, we are not forced to obey in the Christian life, but we are forced to make a choice at many points in our spiritual maturity. 2

We have that power within us to reject Gods instruction - but where else shall we go? If we refuse His words, which way will we turn? If we turn away from the authority of Gods Word, to whose authority do we yield? Our mistake is that we generally turn to some other human - a man with breath in his nostrils. I am old-fashioned about the Word of God and its authority. I am committed to believe that if we ignore it or consider this commandment optional, we jeopardize our souls and earn for ourselves severe judgment to come. Tozer goes on to describe of the need for holiness. Describing it in a Biblical way at first ... but then veering off elsewhere. He goes on to describe this holiness as that special quality and mysterious Presence [which] is morally right and walking in all the holy ways of God. The problem is how he exemplifies this: By way of illustration, remember that Moses possessed these marks and qualities when he came down from the mount. He had been there with God 40 days and 40 nights - and when he came back everyone could tell where he had been. The lightning still played over his countenance, the glory of the Presence remained. This strange something which men cannot pin down or identify was there. I lament that this mysterious quality of holy Presence has all but forsaken the earth in our day. Now I ask you, is this an accurate assessment for him to make? If you would read the large body of Tozers works you would know that those who most exemplify that numinous holy presence and mysterious fire - in Tozers thinking - are none other than the RCC mystics! These are the ones he refers to 15- 16 times in Knowledge of the Holy alone. So when Tozer refers to holiness he is not referring ultimately to Biblical holiness. He only uses that definition to set up his own specialized definition. Sure, he is big on Lordship. So was Pelagius - to such an extent, and writing so sweetly of our need for Gods grace, that even Augustine was at first taken in. That Irish monk (Pelagius) when he arrived in Rome, was rightly incensed at the moral laxity and - outright wickedness, in some cases - of many who claimed to be saints. Though his diagnosis was good, his cure was deadly. There is a parallel here, to some degree at least. There is a subtle distinction in the holiness writings of people like Tozer (to this we can add devotionalists like Oswald Chambers, Selwyn Hughes, just to name a few): 1. Teachers of the Reformation like Calvin, Luther, etc. wrote overpoweringly about the holiness of God - and kept the focus on God Himself. Good for them! Thus our faith and hope is on God. We are constantly made to feel small in the presence, say, of Calvins or Owens God. 2. Tozer (and others mentioned, lest anyone think I am bashing one person) writes about the holiness of God as a quality or commodity that we need to have (which is true!). Yet he 3

inevitably brings the focus on the quality itself. He points to the experience - and not (as in Calvin) - to the Person. And this is why he finds such validating resonance in the testimony of RCC mystics: Their experience echoes his own. Back to Tozer:

Theologians long ago referred to it as the numinous, meaning that overplus of something that is more than righteous, but is righteous in a fearful, awe inspiring, wondrous, heavenly sense. It is as though it is marked with a brightness, glowing with a mysterious fire. Later on he describes this numinous presence as the Shekinah glory and as the manifestation at Pentecost. Once again Tozer misteaches the evidence: emphasizing the it over the Him (but this is in line with his deeper life holiness influences). Then it came down again at Pentecost - that same fire sitting upon each of them - and it rested upon them with an invisible visibility. If there had been cameras, I do not think those tongues of fire could have been photographed - but they were there. It was the sense of being in or surrounded by this holy element, and so strong was it that in Jerusalem when the Christians gathered on Solomons porch, the people stood off from them as wolves will stand away from a bright camp fire. They looked on, but the Bible says no one else dared join them (Acts 5:13a). They did not stay away from the saints as wolves ... from a bright camp fire. They stayed away because Almighty God, the Knower of hearts, killed the phonies (Ananias and Sapphira) from their midst! Tozer plays up the it again. Luke glorifies our God! Tozer merely zeroes in on experience. They stood away from Solomons porch because they had sensed a holy quality, a mysterious and holy Presence within this company of believers. Where do we see any of this in the Bible? We dont. It is a crowning mark of both mystics and deeper life advocates that they emphasize experience supposedly from God over the Person and actual teaching (doctrine) of God. Tozer is true to both of these camps. He makes no mention of the judgment of God in killing two pretenders. God is known by His judgments (Psalm 9:16). He doesnt mention it here, because it would interfere with his point that God would be known if only his saints would manifest His numinous mysterious presence - for which there is no verse. Later, when Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians to explain the mysterious fullness of the Holy Spirit of God, he said: Some of you, when you meet together and you hear and obey God, know there is such a sense of Gods presence that the unbelievers fall on their faces and then go out and report that God is with you indeed. Now, that kind of Presence emanates from God as all holiness emanates from God.

Once again Tozer runs roughshod over the context. He quotes 1 Cor. 14:25 and, if the reader had not read the context, vss. 19- 25, he might grant Tozer his point. That context, however, is all about the usefulness of Biblical instruction, prophesying being used here in its more general sense of forth-telling (= building up). This is not about sharing a mysterious fire, but about sharing what God has taught from His Word! A point Tozer misses entirely. For that matter, this entire book of Tozers, though it is said to be based on 1 Peter, is actually a loosely constructed exposition of Tozers method of holiness - using isolated texts from 1 Peter as suggestive illustration. He did the very same with the verse above from Exodus, Acts and 1 Corinthians. Quoting further down in this chapter 5 still, Tozer, as he almost always does, drops the other shoe: I have met a few of Gods saints who appeared to have this holy brightness upon them, but they did not know it because of their humility and gentleness of spirit. I do not hesitate to confess that my fellowship with them has meant more to me than all of the teaching I have ever received. I do stand deeply indebted to every Bible teacher I have had through the years, but they did little but instruct my head. The brethren I have known who had this strange and mysterious quality and awareness of Gods Person and Presence instructed my heart. Here he downplays the Word of God. He says of every Bible teacher he has had - no exception -that they have essentially failed him! Indebted, yes, but educated (or, should we say, initiated) in the true sense, no. The ones who truly taught him - and (implied) should be teaching us - are Gods saints who appeared to have this holy brightness upon them. Elsewhere he makes clear who these saints are: Teresa of Avila, Richard Rolle, Nicholas of Cusa, etc. a demonstrable Whos Who of inveterate enemies of the true church (more on this in another post). But notice what credentials Tozer looks for to prove that these saints should be followed: It is not to the Word and to the Testimony (Isa. 8:20 - read the whole passage), not Acts 17:11. No. It is that they have a holy brightness. Hmm, I seem to remember that somewhere (2 Cor. 11:14 no mention of holiness, but it passes for that among those whose standard for it is not Biblebased). So, Peter reminds us that it is the Lord who has said: Be holy, because I am holy (1 Peter 1:16). First, bring your life into line morally so that God can make it holy; then bring your spiritual life into line that God may settle upon you with the Holy Ghost - with that quality of the Wonderful and the Mysterious and the Divine. I know that you agree with me, B.R, but I will say it for the benefit of others: This is backwards salvation. Essentially: Be holy so that God can make us holy. Of course Tozer would say I am misquoting him; by his holiness he means deeper life, inner life, etc. However, any Christian should know that we cannot bring our life into line morally (a phrase worthy of both 5

Erasmus and Pelagius) without God first moving in us, opening our eyes (John 3:3), opening our ears (John 10:27), opening our hearts (Acts 16:14), opening our wills (John 1:13, Psalm 110:3). Tozer misses all of this. His calls fall, not on deaf, but on dead, ears. He asks for those dead in sin to prepare themselves for God to save them - and chastens those who dont respond. This is like berating a corpse for being dead. So much for this book. Back to your comments, B.R: But I support your efforts to critique Tozers Arminian views. Just dont undermine it by second guessing Reformed Christians who like to quote him. Dont read too much into their absence of any serious qualifications about their Tozer Quotes (which they likely have). This is good advice. Thanks! That shouldnt be the issue at all. Its probable that they think that there are simply much bigger fish to fry when it comes to opposing serious error (e.g. Dave Hunt or Rick Warren, etc). Yet Tozer is getting to be a bigger and bigger fish than perhaps you realize. His appeal and credibility is across the board and he is being taught and alluded to more and more as the years pass by. And marketed: There is now available a Works of A.W. Tozer CD out with all of his writings and sermons. I think you underestimate this. So in regards to reformed Christians who do quote Tozer with approval, you need to analyze that on each particular case of why they do that, rather than by a sweeping generalization, or by an unsupported presumption that they have a blind spot. Granted. Also, I think you might be careful not to overstate your concerns about Tozer. If his theology is really as dangerous as you seem to think, then wouldnt that have already been clearly point out by other reformed Christians years ago? Surely you cannot believe that you are the only one who is immune from having any blind spots? I am not responsible for what others see - or dont see. I am responsible for speaking up for what I see. I know that that sounds pious and perhaps arrogant, but I think you understand what I mean. If I am wrong on Tozer and his type of theology, and if I am wrong in seeing it as a major danger, then let someone show me this from Scripture. There is a name for that type of argument that you employ in that last sentence but I forget what it was. Anyhow, it is a logical fallacy. On the one hand, we are to respect and listen to our peers on these issues. On the other, we are not to stifle what we believe is a legitimate - and nagging perception.

BTW, I have already had several emails from people who have thanked me, and quite agreed with the assessment. One of them even said that he wondered if he was the only one who saw things wrong with Tozer, and that no one seems to be writing against him. Well, maybe no one writes against him because ... well, no one writes against him. Herd mentality works for sheep too.

Source: http://asterisktom.xanga.com/533965151/tozers-teaching-dangerous-tenets/

A. W. Tozer, the Mystic, Part 1


Gods WORD Howbeit when he, the !irit o" tr#th, is co$e, he wi%% &#ide yo# into a%% tr#th' "or he sha%% not s!ea( o" hi$se%") b#t whatsoe*er he sha%% hear, that sha%% he s!ea(' and he wi%% shew yo# thin&s to co$e.+,-ohn 1.'/

0or the *i%e !erson wi%% s!ea( *i%%any, and his heart wi%% wor( ini1#ity, to !ractise
hy!ocrisy, and to #tter error a&ainst the 2ORD, to $a(e e$!ty the so#% o" the h#n&ry, and he wi%% ca#se the drin( o" the thirsty to "ai%.+,3saiah /4'. Tozer is called both a mystic, and a preacher who calls for evangelicals to return to the authentic, biblical positions that characterized the church when it was most faithful to Christ and His Word. Though Tozer is elusive regarding his bent towards mysticism, others praise him for it. Was !. W. Tozer a "ystic#$ %ather than ta&e the word of others, ' decided to search Tozer(s writings to see if they contained any mysticism. ' will mainly be referencing Tozer(s The Pursuit of God )*+,-., which ' have read a number of times. ' also reviewed Tozer(s The Knowledge of the Holy )*+/*., for mystical references. 'n *+/0, the year of his death, Tozer wrote, The Christian Book of Mystical Verse, a poetry collection from the saintly mystics )which ' won(t be reviewing.. The prefaces to both The Pursuit of God and The Knowledge of the Holy, indicate Tozer was offering what the mystics believe. Tozer is not hiding what he is offering1once you realize he is really spea&ing from the viewpoint that the mystics are right. Tozer is steeped in the literature of the mystics, but not the language of the 2ible, even though he often 3uotes it or alludes to it. "ro$ Pre"ace to Tozers The Pursuit of God

This boo& is a modest attempt to aid 4od(s hungry children so to find Him5it is a
discovery which my own heart has made of spiritual realities most delightful and wonderful to me. 6thers before me have gone much farther into these holy mysteries than ' have done5 Tozer ends with an offer, if my fire is not large it is yet real, and there may be those who can light their candle at its flame. "ro$ Pre"ace to Tozers Knowledge of the Holy

Were Christians today reading such wor&s as those of !ugustine or !nselm a boo& li&e this
would have no reason for being. 2ut such illuminated masters are &nown to modern Christians only by name5

't is my hope that this small boo& may contribute somewhat to the promotion of personal
heart religion among us7 and should a few persons by reading it be encouraged to begin the practice of reverent meditation on the being of 4od, that will more than repay the labor5 'n The Pursuit of God, Tozer often 3uotes or positively references %oman Catholic mystics and their writings1!ugustine, 8icholas of Cusa, Thomas a 9empis )and the :oice from his

'mitation of Christ., ;rancis of !ssisi, von Hugel, 2ernard of Clairvau<, Cloud of Unknowing, ;rederic& ;aber, the Catholic hymn writer, as well as the Chinese sage, =ao>tze. Though the Carmelites, ?ohn of the Cross, Teresa of !vila, and 2rother =awrence, are not mentioned specifically, their mystic belief system is referred to as a correct way to 4od1?ohn(s ascent to 4od, Teresa(s mystical ecstacy )including terms such as piercing sweetness., both ?ohn and Teresa(s use of being inflamed with lo e for God, in which they were referring to a marriage or union with 4od, and =awrence(s Practicing the Presence of God which referenced, the !ll. Thirteen years later, in 9nowledge of the Holy, Tozer again referenced !ugustine, 8icholas of Cusa, Cloud of Unknowing, and ;rederic& ;aber positively. !mong the @eople Tozer added were %ichard %olle, ?ulian of 8orwich, "eister Ac&hart, 2ernard of Cluny, and !nslem, a mystic scholastic. Gods WORD 5#t in *ain they do worshi! $e, teachin& "or doctrines the co$$and$ents o" $en.+,Matthew 16'7

3 $ar*e% that ye are so soon re$o*ed "ro$ hi$ that ca%%ed yo#
into the &race o" 8hrist #nto another &os!e%'

Which is not another) b#t there be so$e that tro#b%e yo#, and wo#%d !er*ert the
&os!e% o" 8hrist.

5#t tho#&h we, or an an&e% "ro$ hea*en, !reach any other &os!e% #nto yo# than
that which we ha*e !reached #nto yo#, %et hi$ be acc#rsed.+,Ga%atians 1'.

Tozer the Mystic, Part 4, What is wron& with P#rs#in& God9


Gods WORD -es#s saith #nto hi$, 3 a$ the way, the tr#th, and the %i"e' no $an co$eth #nto the 0ather, b#t by $e.+,-ohn 1:'. What is wron& with P#rs#in& God9 4od(s way, the 2ible, says ?esus is the only way to 4od. "an&ind prefers to get to 4od through his wor&s andBor through an e<perience. Tozer(s The Pursuit of God could be retitled Pursuing an !"perience of God. Pursuing in the 2ible, usually has to do with going after one(s enemy. The Hebrew word was also translated follow after, as in follow after righteousness, or pursue peace, but the phrase pursue God is not in the 2ible. 4od(s Word does tell us that no one see&s Him, but that ?esus came to see& us who were lost.

As it is written, There is none ri&hteo#s, no, not one' There


is none that #nderstandeth, there is none that see(eth a"ter God.+,Ro$ans /'1;,

11

0or the on o" $an is co$e to see( and to sa*e that which
was %ost.+,2#(e 17'1;

Herein is %o*e, not that we %o*ed God, b#t that he %o*ed #s, and sent his on to be
the !ro!itiation "or o#r sins.+ ,1 -ohn :'1; While affirming and often referencing the 2ible )though maCorly tor3uing it to ma&e his points., Tozer subtly attac&s organizations and those that believe the 2ible. Tozer seems to thin& that worship is a spiritual feeling or sensation. He therefore, accuses people of not being spiritual, because they aren(t pursuing 4od enough and not worshipping correctly. Tozer is enticing people with something more1something we )meaning Christians., apparently didn(t get when we had our sins forgiven. Decond @eter says differently.

Accordin& as his di*ine !ower hath &i*en #nto #s a%% thin&s that !ertain #nto %i"e
and &od%iness, thro#&h the (now%ed&e o" hi$ that hath ca%%ed #s to &%ory and *irt#e'+,4 Peter 1'/ 'nstead of pointing people to what 4od(s Word says, Tozer sets up other people )mystics, but he doesn(t call them that., their philosophies, writings, and e<periences as e<amples of the way you can pursue )get closer to. 4od, e<perience Him, get righteousness, or become more spiritual. How can we get any closer to 4od if we abide in Him and His words abide in us#

-es#s answered and said #nto hi$, 3" a $an %o*e $e, he wi%% (ee! $y words' and
$y 0ather wi%% %o*e hi$, and we wi%% co$e #nto hi$, and $a(e o#r abode with hi$.+,-ohn 1:'4/ 2ecause of the mystical people Tozer refers to as good e<amples, ' am left with the thought that Tozer is really telling his readers, many of whom thin& Tozer is a biblical preacher, that they can have unity with 4od1be one with the Eivine. ?ust li&e the Carmelites, ?ohn of the Cross, Teresa of !vila, and 2rother =awrence, Tozer advocates a mystical way to 4od, but not the 4od of the 2ible, or the true ?esus. Tozer, under the guise of using scripture )albeit wresting it., deceives his readers through enticing words of men(s wisdom, not to the true ?esus, but to another ?esus, not to get closer to 4od, but in actuality, to become one with 4od. 't seems more li&e Tozer is offering water from 5bro&en cisterns, that can hold no water, and advocating a return to the centuries old mysticism of %oman Catholicism, thus propagating Datan(s lie1your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods5

And the ser!ent said #nto the wo$an, <e sha%% not s#re%y die' 0or God doth (now
that in the day ye eat thereo", then yo#r eyes sha%% be o!ened, and ye sha%% be as &ods, (nowin& &ood and e*i%.+,Genesis /'6

There is a way that see$eth ri&ht #nto a $an, b#t the end thereo" are the ways o"
death.+,Pro*erbs 1.'16

0or $y !eo!%e ha*e co$$itted two e*i%s) they ha*e "orsa(en $e the "o#ntain o"
%i*in& waters, and hewed the$ o#t cisterns, bro(en cisterns, that can ho%d no water.+,-ere$iah 4'1/

5#t whosoe*er drin(eth o" the water that 3 sha%% &i*e hi$ sha%% ne*er thirst=+,
-ohn :'1: The ne<t four posts will include 3uotes and some bac&ground information on !ugustine, 2ernard of Clairvau<, 8icholas of Cusa, ;rederic& ;aber, Thomas a 9empis, and The Cloud of Unknowing1all of whom Tozer 3uotes and references positively in The Pursuit of God.

A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God and A#&#stine


Gods WORD

o then "aith co$eth by hearin&, and hearin& by the word o" God.+,Ro$ans
1;'1>

Ho%d "ast the "or$ o" so#nd words, which tho# hast heard o" $e, in "aith and %o*e
which is in 8hrist -es#s.+,4 Ti$othy 1'1/

5eware %est any $an s!oi% yo# thro#&h !hi%oso!hy and *ain deceit, a"ter the
tradition o" $en, a"ter the r#di$ents o" the wor%d, and not a"ter 8hrist.+, 8o%ossians 4'? "any religious institutions and leaders, %oman Catholic, %eformed, @rotestant, and others, have based some of their belief system on the writings of !ugustine of Hippo. Tozer, in his Pursuit of God seems to accept !ugustine(s unbiblical phrases and philosophies1 the interior life, ga#e of the soul, summum $onum. The Pursuit of God, 8ha!ter 1' 0o%%owin& hard a"ter God

The e<periential heart>theology of a grand army of fragrant saints is reCected in favor of a


smug interpretation of Dcripture which would certainly have sounded strange to an !ugustine5 The Pursuit of God, 8ha!ter /' Re$o*in& the @ei%

!mong the famous sayings of the Church fathers none is better &nown than !ugustine(s,
FThou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.( The great saint states here in few words the origin and interior history of the human race5 The Pursuit of God, 8ha!ter >' The Gaze o" the o#%

When the habit of inwardly gazing 4odward becomes fi<ed within us we shall be ushered
onto a new level of spiritual life more in &eeping with the promises of 4od and the mood of the 8ew Testament5

We will have found life(s summun bonum indeed. FThere is the source of all delights that can
be desired5;or it is the absolute ma<imum of every rational desire, than which a greater cannot be.( Gods WORD

O 2ORD, 3 (now that the way o" $an is not in hi$se%"' it is not in $an that wa%(eth to direct his ste!s.+,-ere$iah 1;'4/

"or the i$a&ination o" $ans heart is e*i% "ro$ his yo#th=+
,Genesis ?'41

0or there is no "aith"#%ness in their $o#th) their inward !art is *ery


wic(edness=+,Psa%$ 6'7

3 !ress toward the $ar( "or the !rize o" the hi&h ca%%in& o" God in 8hrist -es#s.+,
Phi%i!!ians /'1: ?T2 commentG 'n these three e<cerpts Tozer has referenced error. Eon(t we base truth on what is written in 4od(s Word, not what a person, even a so>called church father says# What is e<periential heart>theology# The following information e<plains what is meant by some of !ugustine(s unbiblical terms and thin&ing. A#&#stine' 3nner $an, Gaze o" the o#%, and s#$$#n bon#$ The %oul of %t &ugustine by 8ymph 9ellerman !ugustinian thought is based on the soul as the innermost reality, which he calls the Hinner man(5(To arrive at 4od, one begins with the reality of 4od(s creation, and especially with the inner nature of man. He refers to the soul as the Hinterior of man(5 Gods WORD And the 2ord said #nto hi$, Aow do ye Pharisees $a(e c%ean the o#tside o" the c#! and the !%atter) b#t yo#r inward !art is "#%% o" ra*enin& and wic(edness.+, 2#(e 11'/7

0or "ro$ within, o#t o" the heart o" $en, !roceed e*i% tho#&hts, ad#%teries,
"ornications, $#rders,

The"ts, co*eto#sness, wic(edness, deceit, %asci*io#sness, an e*i% eye, b%as!he$y,


!ride, "oo%ishness'

A%% these e*i% thin&s co$e "ro$ within, and de"i%e the $an.+
,Mar( >'41B4/

That he wo#%d &rant yo#, accordin& to the riches o" his &%ory,
to be stren&thened with $i&ht by his ,C!hesians /'1. Gaze o" the so#%Dconte$!%ation Contemplation, the obCect of contemplative life, is defined as the complacent, loving gaze of the soul on Eivine truth already &nown and apprehended by the intellect, assisted and enlightened by Eivine grace. 1p. 0I+ The Catholic !ncyclopedia by Charles 4eorge Herbermann, 9nights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, *+J'n his early wor&, !ugustine adopted a @latonic confidence in reason. Eefining reason as the ga#e of the soul, he proposed that the soul(s eye could gain direct insight into truth and !irit in the inner $an)+

eventually achieve an intellectual vision of 4od.1 Christianity' & Glo$al History, by Eavid Chidester 1/. When, then, yo# sha%% ha*e so#nd eyes, what re$ains9 ;rom The %olilo(uies of %t) &ugustine !.KThat the soul loo&. %.KThe gaze of the soul is %eason7 but since it does not follow that every one who loo&s, sees, that right and perfect loo&ing, which is followed by seeing, is called :irtue, for :irtue is rectified and perfected %eason. 2ut that very act of loo&ing, even though the eyes be sound, cannot turn them toward the =ight unless three things persistG ;aith1by which the soul believes that, that toward which the gaze has been directed, is such that to gaze upon it will cause blessednessG Hope1by which, the eyes being rightly fi<ed, the soul e<pects this vision to followG and =ove1which is the soul(s longing to see and to enCoy it. Duch loo&ing is followed by the vision of 4od Himself, who is the goal of the soul(s gaze, not because it could not continue to loo&, but because there is nothing beyond this on which it can fi< its gaze. This is truly perfected %eason1:irtue1attaining its proper end, on which the happy life follows. !nd this intellectual vision is that which is in the soul a conCunction of the seer and the seen. )translated into Anglish by %ose Alizabeth Cleveland. Gods WORD 5#t when -es#s !ercei*ed their tho#&hts, he answerin& said #nto the$, What reason ye in yo#r hearts9+,2#(e 6'44

0or the -ews re1#ire a si&n, and the Gree(s see( a"ter wisdo$' 5#t we !reach 8hrist cr#ci"ied, #nto the -ews a st#$b%in&b%oc(,
and #nto the Gree(s "oo%ishness)

5#t #nto the$ which are ca%%ed, both -ews and Gree(s, 8hrist the !ower o" God,
and the wisdo$ o" God.+,1 8orinthians 1'44B4:

Which thin&s a%so we s!ea(, not in the words which $ans wisdo$ teacheth, b#t
which the Ho%y Ghost teacheth) co$!arin& s!irit#a% thin&s with s!irit#a%.+,1 8orinthians 4'1/ #$$#$ bon#$ Summum bonum (Latin for the highest good) is an expression used in philosophy, particularly in medieval philosophy, and in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, to describe the ultimate importance, the singular and most ultimate end which human beings ought to pursue

'n the Western world, the concept was introduced by the neoplatonic philosophers, and
described as a feature of the Christian 4od by Daint !ugustine in Ee natura boni )6n the 8ature of 4ood, written circa 0++.. !ugustine denies the positive e<istence of absolute evil, describing a world with 4od as the supreme good at the center, and defining different grades of evil as different stages of remoteness from that center5

Gods WORD And "ro$ -es#s 8hrist=Ento hi$ that %o*ed #s, and washed #s "ro$ o#r sins in his own b%ood,+,Re*e%ation 1'6

And the de*i% that decei*ed the$ was cast into the %a(e o" "ire and bri$stone,
where the beast and the "a%se !ro!het are, and sha%% be tor$ented day and ni&ht "or e*er and e*er.

And death and he%% were cast into the %a(e o" "ire. This is the second death. And whosoe*er was not "o#nd written in the boo( o" %i"e was cast into the %a(e o"
"ire.+,Re*e%ation 4;'1;, 1:, 16

And there sha%% be no $ore c#rse' b#t the throne o" God and o" the 2a$b sha%% be
in it) and his ser*ants sha%% ser*e hi$'

And they sha%% see his "ace) and his na$e sha%% be in their "oreheads. And there sha%% be no ni&ht there) and they need no cand%e, neither %i&ht o" the
s#n) "or the 2ord God &i*eth the$ %i&ht' and they sha%% rei&n "or e*er and e*er.+, Re*e%ation 44'/B6

A. W. Tozer, Pursuit of God, *on H#&e%, 5ernard o" 8%air*a#F, and The Cloud of Unknowing
Gods WORD 0or th#s saith the hi&h and %o"ty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose na$e is Ho%y) 3 dwe%% in the hi&h and ho%y !%ace, with hi$ a%so that is o" a contrite and h#$b%e s!irit, to re*i*e the s!irit o" the h#$b%e, and to re*i*e the heart o" the contrite ones.+,3saiah 6>'16

Who hath !re*ented $e, that 3 sho#%d re!ay hi$9 whatsoe*er is #nder the who%e
hea*en is $ine.+,-ob :1'11

3" 3 were h#n&ry, 3 wo#%d not te%% thee' "or the wor%d is $ine, and the "#%ness
thereo".+,Psa%$ 6;'14 *on HG&e% Pursuit of God 8ha!ter 1' 0o%%owin& hard a"ter God !ll is of 4od, for as von Hugel teaches, 4od is always previous. Abo#t 5aron 0riedrich *on HG&e% ;riedrich von Hugel )"ay *-LIM*+IL. was an influential !ustrian %oman Catholic layman, religious writer and thin&er who lived in Angland from age *L until his death. His scholarly concerns included the relationship of Christianity to history, ecumenism, mysticism and the philosophy of religion. HNgel characterized the human soul, the movements of western civilization, and the

phenomena of religion itself by three elementsG the historical or institutional element, the scientific or intellectual element, and the mystical or e<periential element. HNgel cautionsG 5mysticism would never be the whole of religion7 it would become a dangerous error the very moment it claimed to be this whole7 but, at the same time, it would be an element essential to religion in the long run and upon the whole5 5ernard o" 8%air*a#F Pursuit of God 8ha!ter 1' 0o%%owin& hard a"ter God Dt. 2ernard stated this holy parado< in a musical 3uatrain that will be instantly understood by every worshipping soulG We taste Thee 6 Thou =iving 2read, !nd long taste upon Thee stillG We drin& of Thee, the ;ountainhead !nd thirst our souls from Thee to fill. ?T2 CommentG This sounds li&e the %eal @resence in the Aucharist. Abo#t 5ernard o" 8%air*a#F 2ernard of Clairvau< )*J+JM**L0. was a ;rench abbot and the primary reformer of the 2enedictine Cistercian monastic order, and the dominating figure in the Catholic Church from **IL to **L0. 2ernard was devoted to promoting the veneration of the :irgin "ary, and was the most influential advocate of the Decond Crusade. 'n **I+, 2ernard was instrumental in obtaining the recognition of the new order of 9nights Templar, the rules of which he is said to have drawn up. 'n opposition to the rational approach to divine understanding that the scholastics adopted, 2ernard preached an immediate faith, in which the intercessor was the :irgin "ary. 2ernard played the leading role in the development of the :irgin cult, which is one of the most important manifestations of the popular piety of the twelfth century5 Gods WORD And Mary said, My so#% doth $a&ni"y the 2ord, And $y s!irit hath reHoiced in God $y a*io#r.+,2#(e 1':., :>

0or there is one God, and one $ediator between God and $en, the $an 8hrist
-es#s)+,1 Ti$othy 4'6

And "or this ca#se he is the $ediator o" the new testa$ent, that by $eans o"
death, "or the rede$!tion o" the trans&ressions that were #nder the "irst testa$ent, they which are ca%%ed $i&ht recei*e the !ro$ise o" eterna% inheritance.+,Hebrews 7'16

And to -es#s the $ediator o" the new co*enant, and to the b%ood

o" s!rin(%in&, that s!ea(eth better thin&s than that o" Abe%.+ ,Hebrews 14'4: The Cloud of Unknowing P#rs#it o" God 8ha!ter 1' 0o%%owin& hard a"ter God We need not fear that in see&ing 4od only we may narrow our lives or restrict the motions of our e<panding hearts. The opposite is true. We can well afford to ma&e 4od our !ll, to concentrate, to sacrifice the many for the 6ne.

The 3uaint old Anglish classic, The Cloud of Unknowing, teaches us how to do this. H=ift up
thine heart unto 4od with a mee& stirring of love7 and mean Himself, and none of His goods. !nd thereto, loo& thee loath to thin& on aught but 4od Himself. Do that nought wor& in thy wit, nor in thy will, but only 4od Himself. This is the wor& of the soul that most pleaseth 4od.(

!gain, he recommends that in prayer we practice a further stripping down of everything,


even of our theology. F;or it sufficeth enough, a na&ed intent direct unto 4od without any other cause than Himself.(

!nd he is all for simplicityG 'f we would have religion Flapped and folden in one word, for
that thou shouldst have better hold thereupon, ta&e thee but a little word of one syllableG for so it is better than of two, for even the shorter it is the better it accordeth with the wor& of the Dpirit. !nd such a word is this word 4od or this word love.( ?T2 noteG Tozer is actually advising lectio divina here. The Cloud of Unknowing The Cloud of On&nowing is a spiritual guideboo& thought to have been written in the latter half of the *,th century by an anonymous Anglish mon&, who counsels a young student as to how to see& 4od. The Cloud of Unknowing has been described as Christianity with a Pen outloo&. The practical prayer advice contained in The Cloud of On&nowing forms a primary basis for the contemporary practice of centering prayer, a form of Christian meditation developed by Trappist mon&s William "eninger, 2asil @ennington and Thomas 9eating in the *+QJs. Gods WORD <o#r &%oryin& is not &ood. Inow ye not that a %itt%e %ea*en %ea*eneth the who%e %#$!9+,1 8orinthians 6'.

The sacri"ices o" God are a bro(en s!irit' a bro(en and a contrite heart, O God,
tho# wi%t not des!ise.+,Psa%$ 61'1>

5#t the nat#ra% $an recei*eth not the thin&s o" the !irit o" God' "or they are
"oo%ishness #nto hi$' neither can he (now the$, beca#se they are s!irit#a%%y discerned.+,1 8orinthians 4'1:

Re!ent ye there"ore, and be con*erted, that yo#r sins $ay be b%otted o#t, when
the ti$es o" re"reshin& sha%% co$e "ro$ the !resence o" the 2ord)+,Acts /'17

A. W. Tozer, Pursuit of God, the 8hinese sa&e, 2aotze, and 0aber, the 8atho%ic Hy$nwriter
Gods WORD

Ha*in& a "or$ o" &od%iness, b#t denyin& the !ower thereo"' "ro$ s#ch t#rn
away.+,4 Ti$othy /'6

5eware o" "a%se !ro!hets, which co$e to yo# in shee!s c%othin&, b#t inward%y
they are ra*enin& wo%*es.+ ,Matthew >'16

Whosoe*er trans&resseth, and abideth not in the doctrine o" 8hrist, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine o" 8hrist, he hath both the 0ather and the -ohn 7 on.+,4

5#t s!ea( tho# the thin&s which beco$e so#nd doctrine'+


,Tit#s 4'1 8hinese sa&e, 2aoJtze Pursuit of God 8ha!ter /' Re$o*in& the @ei%

That is the first step, and as the Chinese sage =ao>tze has said,
HThe Courney of a thousand miles begins with a first step.( 2aozi =ao tzu )=ao Tse, =aotze, =ao Pi. was a philosopher of ancient China and is a central figure in Taoism. =aozi, or *ld Master, is revered as a god in religious forms of Taoism. 'n the Taoist religion, =aozi, is also referred to as 6ne of the Three @ure 6nes. =aozi is traditionally regarded as the founder of Taoism, intimately connected with the Tao Te Ching and original Taoism. !s Taoism too& root, =aozi was recognized as a god. 2elief in the revelation of the Eao from the divine =aozi resulted in the formation of the +ay of the Celestial Master, the first organized religious Taoist sect. 0rederic( 0aber Pursuit of God 8ha!ter /' Re$o*in& the @ei%

;rederic& ;aber was one whose soul panted after 4od5and the measure in which 4od
revealed Himself to his see&ing heart set the good man(s whole life afire with a burning adoration rivaling that of the seraphim before the throne5

His love for the @erson of Christ was so intense that it threatened to consume him7 it burned
within him as a sweet and holy madness and flowed from his lips li&e molten gold5!nd addressing our =ord directly he says to HimG H' love Thee so, ' &now not how "y transports to control7 Thy love is li&e a burning fire Within my very soul.(

;aber(s blazing love e<tended also to the Holy Dpirit5He literally pressed his forehead to the
ground in his eager fervid worship of the Third @erson of the 4odhead.

Duch worship as ;aber &new5can never come from a mere doctrinal &nowledge of 4od.

Hearts that are Hfit to brea&( with love for the 4odhead are those who have been in the @resence and have loo&ed with opened eye upon the maCesty of Eeity. "en of the brea&ing hearts had a 3uality about them not &nown to or understood by common men5They had been in the @resence of 4od5 Gods WORD 5#t when the 8o$"orter is co$e, who$ 3 wi%% send #nto yo# "ro$ the 0ather, e*en the !irit o" tr#th, which !roceedeth "ro$ the 0ather, he sha%% testi"y o" $e'+,-ohn 16'4.

Who on%y hath i$$orta%ity, dwe%%in& in the %i&ht which no $an can a!!roach #nto)
who$ no $an hath seen, nor can see=+ ,1 Ti$othy .'1.

And to yo# who are tro#b%ed rest with #s, when the 2ord -es#s sha%% be re*ea%ed
"ro$ hea*en with his $i&hty an&e%s,

3n "%a$in& "ire ta(in& *en&eance on the$ that (now not God, and that obey not
the &os!e% o" o#r 2ord -es#s 8hrist'+ ,4 Thessa%onians 1'>, ? Abo#t 0rederic( Wi%%ia$ 0aber ;rederic& William ;aber )*-*, to *-/0. was an enthusiastic follower of ?ohn Henry 8ewman, a maCor convert to Catholicism. ;aber also converted to %oman Catholicism in 8ovember *-,L, about three years after being ordained an !nglican minister. ;redric& ;aber is mainly remembered as a hymn writer. Dince the Anglish %oman Catholics did not necessarily feel comfortable singing the hymns of their @rotestant neighbors, ;aber, as a Catholic, wrote hymns suitable for %oman Catholic congregational singing. ;aith of 6ur ;athers and There(s a Wideness in 4od(s "ercy composed by ;aber are often in H@rotestant( hymnals. Gods WORD

0or there is no "aith"#%ness in their $o#th) their inward !art is *ery wic(edness)
their throat is an o!en se!#%chre) they "%atter with their ton&#e.+,Psa%$ 6'7

Ho%din& "ast the "aith"#% word as he hath been ta#&ht, that he $ay be ab%e by
so#nd doctrine both to eFhort and to con*ince the &ainsayers.

0or there are $any #nr#%y and *ain ta%(ers and decei*ers=Whose $o#ths $#st be
sto!!ed, who s#b*ert who%e ho#ses, teachin& thin&s which they o#&ht not, "or "i%thy %#cres sa(e.+ ,Tit#s 1'7B11

A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God, Tho$as a Ie$!is, and Aicho%as o" 8#sa
Gods WORD

3" any $an teach otherwise, and consent not to who%eso$e words, e*en the words
o" o#r 2ord -es#s 8hrist, and to the doctrine which is accordin& to &od%iness)

He is !ro#d, (nowin& nothin&, b#t dotin& abo#t 1#estions


and stri"es o" words, whereo" co$eth en*y, stri"e, rai%in&s, e*i% s#r$isin&s,

Per*erse dis!#tin&s o" $en o" corr#!t $inds, and destit#te o" the tr#th,
s#!!osin& that &ain is &od%iness' "ro$ s#ch withdraw thyse%".+,1 Ti$othy .'/B6 Tho$as a Ie$!is Thomas a 9empis wrote a very mystical, unbiblical boo&, The 3$itation o" 8hrist, which apparently had a maCor influence on Tozer(s The Pursuit of God, especially Chapter /G The %peaking Voice. CFcer!t "ro$ Pursuit of God, 8ha!ter 6' The Eni*ersa% Presence

@ic& at random a score of great saints whose lives and testimonies are widely &nown. =et
them be 2ible characters or well &nown Christians of post>2iblical times5how unli&e each other were ?ohn and @aul, Dt. ;rancis and =uther, ;inney and Thomas a 9empis5

Ret they all wal&ed, each in his day, upon a high road of spiritual living
far above the common way5' venture to suggest that the one vital 3uality which they had in common was spiritual receptivity5 ?T2 commentG What they all had in common was that they were sinners. Gods WORD 0or a%% ha*e sinned, and co$e short o" the &%ory o" God)+ ,Ro$ans /'4/

Where"ore, as by one $an sin entered into the wor%d, and death
by sin) and so death !assed #!on a%% $en, "or that a%% ha*e sinned'+ ,Ro$ans 6'14

0or as in Ada$ a%% die, e*en so in 8hrist sha%% a%% be $ade a%i*e.+
,1 8orinthians 16'44 Aicho%as o" 8#sa A<cerpt from Pursuit of God, Chapter QG The 4aze of the Doul

When all my endeavour is turned toward Thee because all Thy endeavour is turned toward
me7 when ' loo& unto Thee alone with all my attention, nor ever turn aside the eyes of my mind, because Thou dost enfold me with Thy constant regard5( Do wrote 8icholas of Cusa four hundred years ago.

' should li&e to say more about this old man of 4od. He is not much &nown today anywhere
among Christian believers, and among current ;undamentalists he is &nown not at all. ' feel

that we could gain much from a little ac3uaintance with men of his spiritual flavor and the school of Christian thought which they represent5

8icholas was a true follower of Christ, a lover of the =ord, radiant and shining in his devotion
to the @erson of ?esus. His theology was orthodo<, but fragrant and sweet5says 8icholas5(With Thee, to behold is to give life7 (tis unceasingly to impart sweetest love of Thee7 (tis to inflame me to love of Thee by love(s imparting, and to feed me by inflaming, and by feeding to &indle my yearning, and by &indling to ma&e me drin& of the dew of gladness, and by drin&ing to infuse in me a fountain of life, and by infusing to ma&e it increase and endure.(

When the habit of inwardly gazing 4odward becomes fi<ed within us we shall be ushered
onto a new level of spiritual life more in &eeping with the promises of 4od and the mood of the 8ew Testament. The Triune 4od will be our dwelling place even while our feet wal& the low road of simple duty here among men. We will have found life(s summum bonum indeed5 the Cusa 3uotes are from, ,icholas of Cusa' The Vision of God Gods WORD 5#t whoso (ee!eth his word, in hi$ *eri%y is the %o*e o" God !er"ected' hereby (now we that we are in hi$.+,1 -ohn 4'6

0or they bein& i&norant o" Gods ri&hteo#sness, and &oin& abo#t to estab%ish their
own ri&hteo#sness, ha*e not s#b$itted the$se%*es #nto the ri&hteo#sness o" God.+,Ro$ans 1;'/ Aicho%as o" 8#sa integralscience.orgBcusa.html Eivinity is the enfolding and unfolding of everything that is. Eivinity is in all things in such a way that all things are in Eivinity.18icolas of Cusa 8icholas of Cusa )*,J* to *,/,. was a philosopher, theologian, mathematician, and an astronomer whose writings influenced the development of %enaissance mathematics and science, and is widely considered as one of the greatest geniuses and polymaths of the *Lth century. !s a 4erman %oman Catholic cardinal, 8icholas served as a papal legate to three popes. 8icholas of Cusa was noted for his deeply mystical writings, particularly on the possibility of &nowing 4od with the divine human mind5His first and most famous treatise, *n -earned .gnorance , is a mystical discourse on the finite and the infinite. The fundamental insight that inspired 8icholas(s thought and writing on metaphysical topics, came from a mystical illumination in *,0Q, during a Courney home from Constantinople. 8icholas described this vision as his gift from 4od which provided him5 a way of viewing opposites as coincident from the point of view of infinity. !ccording to 8icholas, this logic of infinitude unites opposites, transcends comparison, overcomes limits of discursive reasoning, and goes beyond both positive and negative theology.

8icholas was influenced by @lato and 8eoplatonic thin&ers, and drew inspiration from Eionysius, "eister Ac&hart, !nselm of Canterbury, and %amon =ull. Gods WORD

0or 3 (now this, that a"ter $y de!artin& sha%% &rie*o#s wo%*es enter in a$on& yo#,
not s!arin& the "%oc(.+,Acts 4;'47

2et no $an decei*e yo# with *ain words' "or beca#se o" these thin&s co$eth the
wrath o" God #!on the chi%dren o" disobedience.+,C!hesians 6'. Whosoe*er sha%% con"ess that -es#s is the in God. on o" God, God dwe%%eth in hi$, and he

And we ha*e (nown and be%ie*ed the %o*e that God hath to #s. God is %o*e) and he
that dwe%%eth in %o*e dwe%%eth in God, and God in hi$.+,1 -ohn :'16, 1.

Enbib%ica% andDor $ystica% !hrases, in The Pursuit of God by A. W. Tozer


Gods WORD

0or when they s!ea( &reat swe%%in& words o" *anity,


they a%%#re thro#&h the %#sts o" the "%esh, thro#&h $#ch wantonness, those that were c%ean esca!ed "ro$ the$ who %i*e in error.+,4 Peter 4'1?

This wisdo$ descendeth not "ro$ abo*e, b#t is earth%y, sens#a%, de*i%ish.+,-a$es
/'16

And this 3 say, %est any $an sho#%d be&#i%e yo# with enticin& words.+,8o%ossians
4':

0or by thy words tho# sha%t be H#sti"ied, and by thy words tho# sha%t be
conde$ned.+,Matthew 14'/> The 8ha!ters in A. W. Tozers, The Pursuit of God, with a "ew o" the #nbib%ica% andDor $ystica% !hrases. 8ha!ter 1 0o%%owin& Hard a"ter God !ll is of 4od 4od is always previous man must pursue 4od e<perience of the Eivine Creating @ersonality, 4od throbbing heart of 8ew Testament religion feel the heat of their desire after 4od torrent of spiritual desire his burning desire after Christ

to taste, to touch with their hearts to see with their inner eyes the wonder that is 4od our e<panding hearts to sacrifice the many for the 6ne we Christians are in real danger of losing 4od amid the wonders of His Word 8ha!ter 4 The 5%essedness o" Possessin& Aothin& We must ascend a step at a time. &now 4od in growing intimacy inward bleeding 8ha!ter / Re$o*in& the @ei% to push in to conscious awareness of His @resence interior Courney of the soul push on into His @resence ;lame of the @resence the need to e<perience that @resence actually the manifest @resence wrenched loose from that Fblissful center( 8ha!ter : A!!rehendin& God ! spiritual &ingdom lies all about us5within reach of our inner selves only 6ne who is !bsolute, that is 4od !bsolute 6ne great %eality is 4od fi<ed points in the universe 2y the deep wisdom of life real and the imaginary the great unseen %eality is 4od we can rise to unlimited heights our inner eyes taste and hear and inwardly feel the 4od who is our life and our all 4od will become to us the great !ll 8ha!ter 6 The Eni*ersa% Presence the divine immanence the doctrine of the divine @resence transcendent above all His wor&s even while He is immanent within them thin& on them and pray over them until they begin to glow within us. The Oniversal @resence is a fact We will &now Him in increasing degree 8ha!ter . The !ea(in& @oice He fills the world with His spea&ing :oice.

the living :oice of 4od immanent in His creation This word of 4od is the breath of 4od filling the world with living potentiality. universal :oice of 4od The order and life of the world depend upon that :oice /The concept of the speaking oice seems to $e from the 0.mitation of Christ0 $y Thomas a Kempis)1 8ha!ter > The Gaze o" the o#% faith is the gaze of a soul upon a saving 4od. a continuous gaze of the heart at the Triune 4od volitional act which establishes the heart(s intention to gaze forever upon ?esus a habit of soul is forming faith is occupied with the 6bCect upon which it rests lift our inward eyes to gaze upon 4od eyes of the soul loo&ing out the eyes of 4od loo&ing in the all>seeing eyes of 4od nor ever turn aside the eyes of my mind Thou, who are =ove(s self constantly practice this habit of inwardly gazing upon 4od we shall be ushered onto a new level of spiritual life without special e3uipment or religious paraphernalia can never be subCect to the caprice of accident Gods WORD 0or the ways o" $an are be"ore the eyes o" the 2ORD, and he !ondereth a%% his &oin&s.+,Pro*erbs 6'41

The eyes o" the 2ORD are in e*ery !%ace, beho%din& the e*i% and the &ood.+,
Pro*erbs 16'/

To o!en their eyes, and to t#rn the$ "ro$ dar(ness to %i&ht, and "ro$ the !ower
o" atan #nto God, that they $ay recei*e "or&i*eness o" sins, and inheritance a$on& the$ which are sancti"ied by "aith that is in $e.+,Acts 4.'1? The source and even the concept of the phrase, Ga#e of the %oul, and the idea that, faith is the gaze of the heart at 4od, in Chapter Q, is not from the 2ible. Gods WORD =5e%ie*e on the 2ord -es#s 8hrist, and tho# sha%t be sa*ed=+ ,Acts 1.'/1

5#t witho#t "aith it is i$!ossib%e to !%ease hi$' "or he that co$eth to God $#st
be%ie*e that he is, and that he is a rewarder o" the$ that di%i&ent%y see( hi$.+, Hebrews 11'.

o then "aith co$eth by hearin&, and hearin& by the word


o" God.+,Ro$ans 1;'1>

8ha!ter ? Restorin& the 8reatorDcreat#re Re%ation emotionally satisfying a fi<ed center Duch a center is 4od. The pursuit of 4od will embrace the labor of bringing our total personality into conformity to His as we ma&e progress in the holy way Fthe stars in their courses( fight for him this voluntary sell>out of his all to his 4od to ta&e again our 4od as our !ll 4od was our original habitat our hearts5feel at home when they enter again that ancient and beautiful abode holy intention made the difference Gods WORD =he which hath be&#n a &ood wor( in yo# wi%% !er"or$ it #nti% the day o" -es#s 8hrist.+,Phi%i!!ians 1'. 8ha!ter 7 Mee(ness and Rest a visitation from above His words are the essence of truth Gods WORD 0or the %aw was &i*en by Moses, b#t &race and tr#th ca$e by -es#s 8hrist.+,-ohn 1'>

-es#s saith #nto hi$, 3 a$ the way, the tr#th, and the %i"e'
no $an co$eth #nto the 0ather, b#t by $e.+,-ohn 1:'. 8ha!ter 1; The acra$ent o" 2i*in& %acrament is not in the 2ible$ and turn the whole life into a sacrament. unify our inner lives and ma&e everything sacred to us a thousand thought>prayers 4od is in all our simple deeds The sacredness of times and places a half>light necessary to the education of the race passed away before the full sun of spiritual worship ;or such a man, living itself will be sacramental and the whole world a sanctuary. Gods WORD =b#t to this $an wi%% 3 %oo(, e*en to hi$ that is !oor and o" a contrite s!irit, and tre$b%eth at $y word.+,3saiah ..'4

5#t the scri!t#re hath conc%#ded a%% #nder sin, that the !ro$ise by "aith o" -es#s
8hrist $i&ht be &i*en to the$ that be%ie*e.+,Ga%atians /'44

And $y s!eech and $y !reachin& was not with enticin& words o" $ans wisdo$,
b#t in de$onstration o" the !irit and o" !ower'+,1 8orinthians 4':

3" tho# !#t the brethren in re$e$brance o" these thin&s,


tho# sha%t be a &ood $inister o" -es#s 8hrist, no#rished #! in the words o" "aith and o" &ood doctrine, where#nto tho# hast attained.+,1 Ti$othy :'.

What is so a!!ea%in& abo#t The Pursuit of God, by A. W. Tozer9


Gods WORD

Th#s saith the 2ord GOD) Woe #nto the "oo%ish !ro!hets, that "o%%ow their own
s!irit, and ha*e seen nothin&K+,Cze(ie% 1/'/

0or therein is the ri&hteo#sness o" God re*ea%ed "ro$ "aith to "aith' as it is
written, The H#st sha%% %i*e by "aith.+ ,Ro$ans 1'1., 1>

Are ye so "oo%ish9 ha*in& be&#n in the !irit, are ye now $ade !er"ect by the
"%esh9+,Ga%atians /'/

3t is the s!irit that 1#ic(eneth) the "%esh !ro"iteth nothin&' the words that 3 s!ea(
#nto yo#, they are s!irit, and they are %i"e.+,-ohn .'./ Tozer o""ers #s so$ethin& $ore 'n his boo&, The Pursuit of God, Tozer points to his perceived inconsistencies and hypocrisies of conservative Christians or biblical groups. 2ut Tozer does not point these people to the 2ible )our only means to discern truth., for correction so they can repent. 'nstead, Tozer )as do emergent leaders of today., uses the so>called faults of people who may or may not be Christians, as an e<cuse to disregard 4od(s Word. Then, by wresting scripture and false guilt trips, Tozer introduces and convinces fol& of another way1a false ?esus and an e<periential, mystical religion, which is actually, the old mystic path to union with 4od. The most amazing thing about this to me is that so many denominations and belief systems elevate Tozer and his teachings, many thin&ing he is biblical. Do, why do people from so many Christian belief systems li&e The Pursuit of God, and thin& it is helpful in their wal& with the =ord# A "ew o" the reasons that this boo( a!!ea%s to #s Tozer sounds so spiritual. We choose spiritual over godly and biblical. We want the something more which Tozer offers. We want an e<perience, to feel more spiritual, and feel close to 4od. We don(t have what Tozer is offering, so we assume there is something more. We are trusting in a feeling, and giving credibility to e<perience.

We have not repented from our sins, so therefore, don(t have salvation. We thin& man(s words and e<perience trumps 4od(s W6%E. We are not discerning. We don(t remember all the warnings about deception. We thin& there is something we can do to get close to 4od. We thin& there is something we can do to be more holy. We don(t believe our heart is deceitful5and desperately wic&ed5 We do not understand the transaction that has ta&en place on our behalf. 4od seems far away because we have unconfessed sin in our life. Gods WORD 5#t yo#r ini1#ities ha*e se!arated between yo# and yo#r God, and yo#r sins ha*e hid his "ace "ro$ yo#, that he wi%% not hear.+,3saiah 67'4

Draw ni&h to God, and he wi%% draw ni&h to yo#. 8%eanse yo#r hands, ye sinners)
and !#ri"y yo#r hearts, ye do#b%e $inded.+ ,-a$es :'? ' was raised in a "ethodistB2aptist tradition. !t age *J, ' wrote in my 2ible that ' had accepted ?esus as my Daviour. ' &new that 4od was the Creator, that ?esus was 4od and that ?esus died on the cross for sins, and ' tried to be good. ' was a real good Hrule( &eeper. Dtarting in my teens, ' felt a huge distance between 4od and me. ' tried rededicating my life, giving 4od everything, getting Hsaved( again, and e<periencing 4od in nature. ' read the 2ible through many times1often daily, and prayed daily. ' &new the right answers, but ' didn(t &now how to find 4od. ' did have a favorite passage of scripture. ' wanted to &now the truth, and ' &new ' was all bound up inside, and confused. ' wanted to be free, but ' didn(t &now how.

And ye sha%% (now the tr#th, and the tr#th sha%% $a(e yo# "ree.+,-ohn ?'/4
;inally, in my early 0Js, ' understood ' was a sinner and received forgiveness from ?esus, my Daviour. ' had continued to read the 2ible through the years. !nd the verses ' read, whether in the new or old testament, tal&ed about rebellion. When ' read, ;irst Damuel *LGI0, ' told the =ord ' didn(t thin& ' had a problem with rebellion, but if it was a problem, would He please show me.

0or rebe%%ion is as the sin o" witchcra"t=+, 1 a$#e% 16'4/


' realized that ' was rebellious. ' remembered rebellious thoughts ' had towards my parents bac& to about three years old. ' read in ?eremiahG

The heart is deceit"#% abo*e a%% thin&s, and des!erate%y wic(ed' who can (now
it9+,-ere$iah 1>'7 ' remembered a verse that had bothered me for a long timeG

And tho# sha%t %o*e the 2ord thy God with a%% thy heart,

and with a%% thy so#%, and with a%% thy $ind, and with a%% thy stren&th' this is the "irst co$$and$ent.+ ,Mar( 14'/; !nother verse came to mindG

Whosoe*er hateth his brother is a $#rderer' and ye (now that no $#rderer hath
eterna% %i"e abidin& in hi$.+ ,1 -ohn /'16 When ' realized that 4od saw me as a murderer, ' finally comprehended what a terrible predicament ' was in. ' was a rebellious, murderer, with a wic&ed, deceitful heart, that could not, nor if ' was honest with myself, did not want to &eep the first commandment. ' did not really want 4od. ' didn(t want to wal& in His way. 'n fact, ' couldn(t do what was right because there was no good in me. ' could do 86TH'84 to ma&e myself acceptable to 4od. !t that point, ' grasped some of the significance of ?esus( death on the cross.

5#t God co$$endeth his %o*e toward #s, in that, whi%e we were yet sinners, 8hrist
died "or #s.+,Ro$ans 6'? ' as&ed for forgiveness, and ?esus forgave me and gave me new life. He rescued me from the 9ingdom of dar&ness, and put me in His 9ingdom of =ight. ' was free.

3" the on there"ore sha%% $a(e yo# "ree, ye sha%% be "ree indeed.+,-ohn ?'/.
When ' read the 2ible, ' started to understand it. Then said -es#s to those -ews which be%ie*ed on hi$, 3" ye contin#e in $y word, then are ye $y disci!%es indeed) ,-ohn ?'/1

-es#s answered and said #nto hi$, 3" a $an %o*e $e, he wi%% (ee! $y words' and
$y 0ather wi%% %o*e hi$, and we wi%% co$e #nto hi$, and $a(e o#r abode with hi$.+,-ohn 1:'4/ That was almost 0J years ago. Have ' doubted my salvation ever# Res. Have ' strayed into strange doctrine ever# Res. Have ' made bad decisions# Res. 2ut once ' understood ' was a sinner, ' &new that there was 86TH'84 ' could do to save myself, and li&ewise, there was 86TH'84 ' could do to ma&e myself holy. 't is all about ?esus and what He has done and is doing for me. Gods WORD 2oo(in& #nto -es#s the a#thor and "inisher o" o#r "aith) who "or the Hoy that was set be"ore hi$ end#red the cross, des!isin& the sha$e, and is set down at the ri&ht hand o" the throne o" God.+,Hebrews 14'4

0or 3 a$ not asha$ed o" the &os!e% o" 8hrist' "or it is the !ower o" God #nto
sa%*ation to e*ery one that be%ie*eth) to the -ew "irst, and a%so to the Gree(.+,Ro$ans 1'1.

And be "o#nd in hi$, not ha*in& $ine own ri&hteo#sness, which is o" the %aw, b#t

that which is thro#&h the "aith o" 8hrist, the ri&hteo#sness which is o" God by "aith'+ ,Phi%i!!ians /'7

5#t o" hi$ are ye in 8hrist -es#s, who o" God is $ade #nto
#s wisdo$, and ri&hteo#sness, and sancti"ication, and rede$!tion'+,1 8orinthians 1'/;

More Enbib%ica% L#otes "ro$ A. W. Tozer


Gods WORD

5e%o*ed, be%ie*e not e*ery s!irit, b#t try the s!irits


whether they are o" God' beca#se $any "a%se !ro!hets are &one o#t into the wor%d.+,1 -ohn :'1

0ina%%y, brethren, !ray "or #s, that the word o" the 2ord
$ay ha*e "ree co#rse=And that we $ay be de%i*ered "ro$ #nreasonab%e and wic(ed $en' "or a%% $en ha*e not "aith.+ ,4 Thessa%onians /'1, 4

0or we !reach not o#rse%*es, b#t 8hrist -es#s the 2ord) and o#rse%*es yo#r
ser*ants "or -es#s sa(e.+,4 8orinthians :'6

0or we are not as $any, which corr#!t the word o" God' b#t
as o" sincerity, b#t as o" God, in the si&ht o" God s!ea( we in 8hrist.+,4 8orinthians 4'1> ;ollowing are a few 3uotes of !. W. Tozer from several of his boo&s, with some 2ible verses which address some of the error of !. W. Tozer(s writings. Knowledge of the Holy, by Tozer, eFcer!t "ro$ 8ha!ter 6 That 4od is everything and man nothing is a basic tenet of Christian faith and devotion7 and here the teachings of Christianity coincide with those of the more advanced and philosophical religions of the Aast. Gods WORD 2et no $an decei*e yo# with *ain words' "or beca#se o" these thin&s co$eth the wrath o" God #!on the chi%dren o" disobedience.+,C!hesians 6'.

And this 3 say, %est any $an sho#%d be&#i%e yo# with enticin& words.+,8o%ossians
4':

And $y s!eech and $y !reachin& was not with enticin& words o" $ans wisdo$,
b#t in de$onstration o" the !irit and o" !ower',1 8orinthians 4': Echoes from Eden by Tozer, eFcer!t "ro$ cha!ter : Do Christ(s blood was our blood, and this is the theology of 8ew Testament victory for the believer. This is the theology that ' e<perienced as a young man

in the !lliance. Gods WORD Aeither by the b%ood o" &oats and ca%*es, b#t by his own b%ood he entered in once into the ho%y !%ace, ha*in& obtained eterna% rede$!tion "or #s.+,Hebrews 7'14

Where"ore -es#s a%so, that he $i&ht sancti"y the !eo!%e with his own b%ood,
s#""ered witho#t the &ate.+,Hebrews 1/'14

Ta(e heed there"ore #nto yo#rse%*es, and to a%% the "%oc(,


o*er the which the Ho%y Ghost hath $ade yo# o*erseers, to "eed the ch#rch o" God, which he hath !#rchased with his own b%ood.+,Acts 4;'4?

This is the theology that tells me that Christ and ' are united, so that when He died, ' died,
and when He arose, ' arose. Gods WORD 5#t we see -es#s, who was $ade a %itt%e %ower than the an&e%s "or the s#""erin& o" death, crowned with &%ory and hono#r) that he by the &race o" God sho#%d taste death "or e*ery $an.+,Hebrews 4'7

And "ro$ -es#s 8hrist, who is the "aith"#% witness, and the "irst be&otten o" the
dead, and the !rince o" the (in&s o" the earth. Ento hi$ that %o*ed #s, and washed #s "ro$ o#r sins in his own b%ood,+,Re*e%ation 1'6

This is the doctrine of spiritual victory, and there is no other way that consistent victory can
be found. Gods WORD 5#t than(s be to God, which &i*eth #s the *ictory thro#&h o#r 2ord -es#s 8hrist.+,1 8orinthians 16'6> Man the Dwelling Place of God by A. W. Tozer 8ha!ter 14. Three De&rees o" Re%i&io#s Inow%ed&e 'n our &nowledge of divine things three degrees may be distinguishedG the &nowledge furnished by reason, by faith and by spiritual e<perience respectively5 Gods WORD = be tho# an eFa$!%e o" the be%ie*ers, in word, in con*ersation, in charity, in s!irit, in "aith, in !#rity. Ti%% 3 co$e, &i*e attendance to readin&, to eFhortation, to doctrine.+,1 Ti$othy :'14, 1/

0or this ca#se a%so than( we God witho#t ceasin&, beca#se, when ye recei*ed the
word o" God which ye heard o" #s, ye recei*ed it not as the word o" $en, b#t as it is in tr#th, the word o" God, which e""ect#a%%y wor(eth a%so in yo# that be%ie*e.+,1 Thessa%onians 4'1/ 8ha!ter 17 The 8o$$#nion o" aints

Then, true Christian communion consists in the sharing of a @resence5

The immanence of 4od in His universe ma&es possible


the enCoyment of the real @resence by the saints of 4od in heaven and on earth simultaneously5

' suggest also that we try to ac3uaint ourselves as far as possible with the good and saintly
souls who lived before our times5!ugustine, for instance, would bring to us a sense of the overwhelming maCesty of 4od52ernard of Cluny would sing to us of H?erusalem the 4olden( and the peace of an eternal sabbath day until the miserable pleasures of this world become intolerable7

%ichard %olle would show us how to escape from the abundance of riches, the flattering of
women and the fairness of youth, that we may go on to &now 4od with an intimacy that will become in our hearts Hheat, fragrance and song(7

Tersteegen would whisper to us of the Hhidden love of 4od( and the awful @resence until our
hearts would become Hstill before Him( and Hprostrate inwardly adore Him(7 before our eyes the sweet Dt. ;rancis would throw his arms of love around sun and moon, trees and rain, bird and beast, and than& 4od for them all in a pure rapture of spiritual devotion5 Gods WORD 5eware %est any $an s!oi% yo# thro#&h !hi%oso!hy and *ain deceit, a"ter the tradition o" $en, a"ter the r#di$ents o" the wor%d, and not a"ter 8hrist.+, 8o%ossians 4'?

Which thin&s a%so we s!ea(, not in the words which $ans wisdo$ teacheth, b#t
which the Ho%y Ghost teacheth) co$!arin& s!irit#a% thin&s with s!irit#a%.+,1 8orinthians 4'1/

Ma(in& the word o" God o" none e""ect thro#&h yo#r tradition, which ye ha*e
de%i*ered' and $any s#ch %i(e thin&s do ye.+,Mar( >'1/ P#rs#it o" God 8ha!ter 1 0o%%owin& Hard a"ter God 5we Christians are in real danger of losing 4od amid the wonders of His Word. We have almost forgotten that 4od is a @erson and, as such, can be cultivated as any person can5 Gods WORD God is not a $an=+,A#$bers 4/'17

God is a !irit' and they that worshi! hi$ $#st worshi! hi$ in s!irit and in
tr#th.+,-ohn :'4: 8ha!ter . The !ea(in& @oice The 2ible is the written word of 4od, and because it is written it is confined and limited by the necessities of in& and paper and leather. The :oice of 4od, however, is alive and free as the sovereign 4od is free.

Wherein 3 s#""er tro#b%e, as an e*i% doer, e*en #nto bonds)

b#t the word o" God is not bo#nd.+,4 Ti$othy 4'7

The life is in the spea&ing words. 4od(s word in the 2ible can have power only because it
corresponds to 4od(s word in the universe. 't is the present :oice which ma&es the written Word all>powerful. 6therwise it would lie loc&ed in slumber within the covers of a boo&. Gods WORD And this is the record, that God hath &i*en to #s eterna% %i"e, and this %i"e is in his on.+,1 -ohn 6'11

And we (now that the on o" God is co$e, and hath &i*en #s an #nderstandin&,
that we $ay (now hi$ that is tr#e, and we are in hi$ that is tr#e, e*en in his -es#s 8hrist. This is the tr#e God, and eterna% %i"e.+,1 -ohn 6'4; on

!gain we must remember that 4od is referring ere not to His written Word,
but to His spea&ing :oice. His world>filling :oice is meant, that :oice which antedates the 2ible by uncounted centuries, that :oice which has not been silent since the dawn of creation, but is sounding still throughout the full far reaches of the universe5 Gods WORD

earch the scri!t#res) "or in the$ ye thin( ye ha*e eterna% %i"e' and they are they
which testi"y o" $e.+,-ohn 6'/7

"or the testi$ony o" -es#s is the s!irit o" !ro!hecy.+


,Re*e%ation 17'1;

Whosoe*er trans&resseth, and abideth not in the doctrine o" 8hrist, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine o" 8hrist, he hath both the 0ather and the -ohn 7 on.+,4

3" any $an teach otherwise, and consent not to who%eso$e words, e*en the words
o" o#r 2ord -es#s 8hrist, and to the doctrine which is accordin& to &od%iness)

He is !ro#d, (nowin& nothin&, b#t dotin& abo#t 1#estions and stri"es o" words,
whereo" co$eth en*y, stri"e, rai%in&s, e*i% s#r$isin&s,

Per*erse dis!#tin&s o" $en o" corr#!t $inds, and destit#te o" the tr#th,
s#!!osin& that &ain is &od%iness' "ro$ s#ch withdraw thyse%".+,1 Ti$othy .'/, :, 6

Discernin& or Decei*in&' The Cc#$enis$ o" 8hristian Wor%d*iew and A. W. Tozer


Gods WORD

Aow the !arab%e is this' The seed is the word o" God. Those by the way side are they that hear) then co$eth
the de*i%, and ta(eth away the word o#t o" their hearts, %est they sho#%d be%ie*e and be sa*ed.

5#t that on the &ood &ro#nd are they, which in an honest


and &ood heart, ha*in& heard the word, (ee! it, and brin&

"orth "r#it with !atience.+,2#(e ?'11, 14, 16

5ein& born a&ain, not o" corr#!tib%e seed, b#t o" incorr#!tib%e, by the word o"
God, which %i*eth and abideth "or e*er.+,1 Peter 1'4/

And -es#s answered hi$, sayin&, 3t is written, That $an sha%% not %i*e by bread
a%one, b#t by e*ery word o" God.+,2#(e :':

5#t s!ea( tho# the thin&s which beco$e so#nd doctrine'+


,Tit#s 4'1

Ho%d "ast the "or$ o" so#nd words, which tho# hast heard o" $e, in "aith and %o*e
which is in 8hrist -es#s.+,4 Ti$othy 1'1/

Ho%din& "ast the "aith"#% word as he hath been ta#&ht, that he $ay be ab%e by
so#nd doctrine both to eFhort and to con*ince the &ainsayers.+,Tit#s 1'7 ?esus warns us four ),. times in "atthew to watch out for deception.

And -es#s answered and said #nto the$, Ta(e heed that no $an decei*e yo#.+,
Matthew 4:':

0or $any sha%% co$e in $y na$e, sayin&, 3 a$ 8hrist) and sha%% decei*e $any.+,
Matthew 4:'6

And $any "a%se !ro!hets sha%% rise, and sha%% decei*e $any.+
,Matthew 4:'11

0or there sha%% arise "a%se 8hrists, and "a%se !ro!hets, and sha%% shew &reat si&ns
and wonders) inso$#ch that, i" it were !ossib%e, they sha%% decei*e the *ery e%ect.+,Matthew 4:'4: ?esus warned about wolves, and said to chec& their fruit. @aul, too warned about wolves. Wolves are in the floc&1not outside of the floc&.

5eware o" "a%se !ro!hets, which co$e to yo# in shee!s c%othin&, b#t inward%y
they are ra*enin& wo%*es.

<e sha%% (now the$ by their "r#its. Do $en &ather &ra!es


o" thorns, or "i&s o" thist%es9

A &ood tree cannot brin& "orth e*i% "r#it, neither can a


corr#!t tree brin& "orth &ood "r#it.

Where"ore by their "r#its ye sha%% (now the$.+


,Matthew >'16, 1., 1?, 4;

0or 3 (now this, that a"ter $y de!artin& sha%% &rie*o#s wo%*es enter in a$on& yo#,
not s!arin& the "%oc(.+,Acts 4;'47 ?esus said that the wheat and tares grow up together.

Another !arab%e !#t he "orth #nto the$, sayin&, The (in&do$ o" hea*en is %i(ened
#nto a $an which sowed &ood seed in his "ie%d'

5#t whi%e $en s%e!t, his ene$y ca$e and sowed tares a$on& the wheat, and
went his way.

5#t when the b%ade was s!r#n& #!, and bro#&ht "orth "r#it, then a!!eared the
tares a%so.

o the ser*ants o" the ho#seho%der ca$e and said #nto hi$, ir, didst not tho#
sow &ood seed in thy "ie%d9 "ro$ whence then hath it tares9

He said #nto the$, An ene$y hath done this. The ser*ants said #nto hi$, Wi%t
tho# then that we &o and &ather the$ #!9

5#t he said, Aay) %est whi%e ye &ather #! the tares, ye root #! a%so the wheat with
the$.

2et both &row to&ether #nti% the har*est' and in the ti$e o" har*est 3 wi%% say to
the rea!ers, Gather ye to&ether "irst the tares, and bind the$ in b#nd%es to b#rn the$' b#t &ather the wheat into $y barn.+,Matthew 1/'4:B/;

Whose "an is in his hand, and he wi%% thro#&h%y !#r&e his "%oor, and wi%% &ather the
wheat into his &arner) b#t the cha"" he wi%% b#rn with "ire #n1#enchab%e.+ ,Matthew /'14 and 2#(e /'1> Are Discern$ent Ministries Discernin& Dece!tion ' have a concern that there are wolves andBor tares scattered amongst the many discernment ministries, and that they are diverting people with side issues, and in essence deceiving people away from 4od(s Word. "y post today will address the failure of so>called discernment ministries to warn people regarding the error )incorrect doctrine. and ecumenism inherent in the 2iblicalBChristian Worldview philosophies and !. W. Tozer(s writings. "inistries may be giving correct information and warnings, but we need to chec& their leaven status.

A %itt%e %ea*en %ea*eneth the who%e %#$!.+,Ga%atians 6'7


O" 8hristian or 5ib%ica% Wor%d*iew and @a%#esD$ora%s "y observation is that the 2iblical or Christian Worldview )2W:. philosophy is a system of valuesBmorals that people of diverse beliefs, whether biblical or not, can agree with, and therefore it is ecumenical. 't appears to me to be the %oman Catholic common ground ploy that is used to get the focus off discerning 4od(s Word. This ecumenical approach, then, focuses on moral or social issues, subtly deflecting people from the real truth of 4od(s Word, that 4od wants to save sinners, not cultures )as do the %oman Catholics.. The 2W: philosophy completely misses the fact that we can not put a template of morality on people, nor can we humans &eep or even want to &eep the morals the 2W: group wants to superimpose on everyone. 'f they want to be 2iblical about it, it is 86T their Cob, but the Holy Dpirit(s Cob to convict sinners to repent and get forgiveness from a loving 4od, that will enable the forgiven sinner to wal& in 4od(s ways. The 2W: does go along with an agenda to ma&e everyone conform to a supposed Christian

belief system so that there can be a Christian 4overnment1another very unbiblical concept. Chuc& Colson says in this interview, that Christian +orld iew was a common ground way to combine the beliefs Catholics and @rotestants agreed on. Chuc& Colson 'nterview A W Tozer, Mystic ?ust as 2W: is ecumenical, so too, are ! W Tozer(s writings. Tozer(s boo&s and sermons are praised by a diverse group of belief systemsG @entecostal, Charismatic, %eformed, 2aptist, Calvinism, 'nternational House of @rayer )'H6@., and Christian "issionary !lliance, to name a few. ! number of discernment ministries reference Tozer positively in their writings and some sell his sermons or boo&s online. ' do not understand this at all. @erhaps these fol& are not aware of Tozer(s mystical teachings and were deceived by the parts of his writing wherein he advocates moral behavior and teaches against heresy. ! W Tozer, in my opinion, is a worse deceiver than any of the so>called emergent church leaders of today that discernment ministries correctly point out as mystical and contemplative. Discernin& Discern$ent Ministries ' suggest that you ta&e any of your favorite discernment ministries and see if they promote a 2iblical Worldview, positively reference Tozer(s writings or sell his sermons or boo&s. 'f Tozer is not readily apparent on a discernment site, try googling the name of the ministry or the person that heads up the ministry, and Tozer. Rou may be surprised. ' &now ' was. Gods WORD =Ae*erthe%ess when the 2#(e 1?'? on o" $an co$eth, sha%% he "ind "aith on the earth9+,

Cnter ye in at the strait &ate' "or wide is the &ate, and broad is the way, that
%eadeth to destr#ction, and $any there be which &o in thereat'

5eca#se strait is the &ate, and narrow is the way, which %eadeth #nto %i"e, and "ew
there be that "ind it.+ ,Matthew >'1/, 1:

And ta(e the he%$et o" sa%*ation, and the sword o" the !irit, which is the word o"
God'+,C!hesians .'1>

Discern$ent Ministries' Decei*in& and 5ein& Decei*ed


Gods WORD

How sha%% we esca!e, i" we ne&%ect so &reat sa%*ation)


which at the "irst be&an to be s!o(en by the 2ord, and was con"ir$ed #nto #s by the$ that heard hi$)+,Hebrews 4'/

5#t e*i% $en and sed#cers sha%% waF worse and worse, decei*in&, and bein&
decei*ed.

5#t contin#e tho# in the thin&s which tho# hast %earned


and hast been ass#red o", (nowin& o" who$ tho# hast %earned the$)

And that "ro$ a chi%d tho# hast (nown the ho%y scri!t#res, which are ab%e to $a(e
thee wise #nto sa%*ation thro#&h "aith which is in 8hrist -es#s.

A%% scri!t#re is &i*en by ins!iration o" God, and is !ro"itab%e "or doctrine, "or
re!roo", "or correction, "or instr#ction in ri&hteo#sness'

That the $an o" God $ay be !er"ect, thro#&h%y "#rnished #nto a%% &ood wor(s.+,4
Ti$othy /'1/B1> 6riginally, my ?ust the 2oo& blog was intended to post research regarding what was behind the Homeschool agenda, its leaders, Christian Worldview, religious right and the right wing of government. !s a result of the research ' have done, ' now understand that there is a 3uagmire of deception beyond comprehension in about any area and on many levels1education, media, science, government, religious systems, and ministries, )including discernment ministries..

0or a%% that is in the wor%d, the %#st o" the "%esh, and the %#st o" the eyes, and the
!ride o" %i"e, is not o" the 0ather, b#t is o" the wor%d.+,1 -ohn 4'1.

And we (now that we are o" God, and the who%e wor%d %ieth
in wic(edness.+,1 -ohn 6'17 't seems that the error ' have found and compared with Dcripture since !ugust of IJJQ, on my ?ust the 2oo& blog, has been li&e trying to trac& down all the counterfeit money there is and compare it to genuine money to show people why it is counterfeit. There is no end of the deceit and the deception that can be researched.

3 ha*e not written #nto yo# beca#se ye (now not the tr#th, b#t beca#se ye (now
it, and that no %ie is o" the tr#th.+ ,1 -ohn 4'41

<e are o" yo#r "ather the de*i%, and the %#sts o" yo#r "ather
ye wi%% do. He was a $#rderer "ro$ the be&innin&, and abode not in the tr#th, beca#se there is no tr#th in hi$. When he

s!ea(eth a %ie, he s!ea(eth o" his own' "or he is a %iar, and the "ather o" it.+,-ohn ?'::

0or s#ch are "a%se a!ost%es, deceit"#% wor(ers, trans"or$in& the$se%*es into the
a!ost%es o" 8hrist.

And no $ar*e%) "or atan hi$se%" is trans"or$ed into an


an&e% o" %i&ht.

There"ore it is no &reat thin& i" his $inisters a%so be


trans"or$ed as the $inisters o" ri&hteo#sness) whose end sha%% be accordin& to their wor(s.+,4 8orinthians 11'1/B16

Aow the !irit s!ea(eth eF!ress%y, that in the %atter ti$es so$e sha%% de!art "ro$
the "aith, &i*in& heed to sed#cin& s!irits, and doctrines o" de*i%s)

!ea(in& %ies in hy!ocrisy) ha*in& their conscience seared with a hot iron)+,1
Ti$othy :'1, 4

De%i*er $y so#%, O 2ORD, "ro$ %yin& %i!s, and "ro$ a deceit"#% ton&#e.+,Psa%$
14;'4

0or they s!ea( not !eace' b#t they de*ise deceit"#% $atters a&ainst the$ that are
1#iet in the %and.+,Psa%$ /6'4;

A tr#e witness de%i*ereth so#%s' b#t a deceit"#% witness s!ea(eth %ies.+,Pro*erbs


1:'46

The heart is deceit"#% abo*e a%% thin&s, and des!erate%y wic(ed' who can (now
it9+,-ere$iah 1>'7 ' found doublespea& and hypocrisy, selective discernment advice, as well as the twisting and intricately intertwining of scripture for an unbiblical agenda, in the writings of !. W. Tozer, the rhetoric and writings of homeschooling leaders, Christian worldview fol&, the religious right, those from the right wing of government, as well as many of the Eiscernment 2logs ' have read. Aew A&e Discern$ent Ministries ' was not prepared, however, to find a connection between homeschooling, Christian Worldview fol&, Tozer and Eiscernment "inistries, with 8ew !ge Eiscernment "inistries and boo&s. The double spea&Bhypocriscy that goes on is appalling. Eiscernment ministries pointing to the 8ew !ge thought in politics and religion as part of our political and world system, ma&e people fearful about things they have no control over, thereby deflecting people from living a 3uiet life and the faith wal& the 2ible directs us to live. The Original ie

And the ser!ent said #nto the wo$an, <e sha%% not s#re%y die' 0or God doth (now
that in the day ye eat thereo", then yo#r eyes sha%% be o!ened, and ye sha%% be as &ods, (nowin& &ood and e*i%.+,Genesis /':, 6 't seems that our world is permeated with the original lie and the earning of salvation and

righteousness by ones own wor&s )li&e Cain.. The lie belongs to the 9ingdom of Ear&ness, and can be traced through history to %evelation where it is called )my opinion. "ystery 2abylon and is connected to the 4reat Whore.

0or tr#e and ri&hteo#s are his H#d&$ents' "or he hath


H#d&ed the &reat whore, which did corr#!t the earth with her "ornication, and hath a*en&ed the b%ood o" his ser*ants at her hand.+,Re*e%ation 17'4 Theoso!hy and the Ori&ina% 2ie 'nstead of lin&ing 8ew !ge thought to the original lie, the 8ew !ge discernment ministries through their boo&s, writings, and posts, set up Theosophy as the spiritual system from which 8ew !gers get their motivation. Theosophy as well as the doctrine of the %oman Catholic Church, the "ormon Church, freemasonry )which by the way, the Douthern 2aptist Church won(t say is wrong., hermeticism, 2abylonian and Agyptian mysticism, paganism, 4ree& philosophy, mysticism, Hinduism, 2uddhism, alchemy, neo platonists, desert fathers )mystics., scholasticism )in my opinion., metaphysical beliefs, contemplatives, cults1any belief system that is not about trusting in ?esus( sacrifice alone for forgiveness of sins1all are based on the original lie 3uoted in 4enesis, which taunts people to be li&e 4od, and to Hfind( 4od their own way, but does not tell people they can get their sins forgiven. The Cc#$enis$ o" the Aew A&e Discern$ent MAADN and other Discern$ent Ministries 6ne of the many parado<es is that though they warn against ecumenical groups, the Eiscernment "inistries themselves, are appealing to an ecumenical group. 8ew !ge discernment information and boo&s, Cust li&e Christian Worldview and Tozer, have the )%oman Catholic. ecumenical and common ground appeal. 2aptists, Catholics, "ennonites, Deventh Eay !dventists, Church of the 8azerene and Apiscopalians all seem to be interested in what 8ew !ge so>called Eiscernment ministries are discerning and warning against. Possib%e Aew A&e Discern$ent endti$es be%ie" 8ot only do 8ew !ge Eiscernment ministries falsely focus on Theosophy as the reason 8ew !ge thin&ing is wrong, but ' suspect that the 8!E ministries believe a different endtime scenario that is not from the boo& of %evelation. @erhaps at least some of them believe the endtimes are revealed in the %oman Catholic apocalyptic novel, -ord of the +orld, written in *+J-, by %obert Hugh 2enson, or in a series of apocalyptic novels collectively entitled Children of the -ast 2ays, written by "ichael E. 6(2rien. Discern$ent Ministries do not warn abo#t the Ccc%esia in A$erica' The way to con*ersion, co$$#nion and so%idarity in A$erica

1@ope ?ohn @aul '', "e<ico, *+++ ' would also li&e to remind you of the %oman Catholic evangelization plan, which already seems to be in place, but is not addressed by the Eiscernment "inistries.

Train truly Christian leaders in the different spheres of human activity, and in society,
especially in politics, economics, science, art and philosophical reflection5 2ast -T5 Post "or a whi%e This is my last post, possibly for a very long while. '(ve found out more than ' wanted to &now about Eiscernment "inistries. The deception is deep and vast, with a deep bench of players from all wal&s of life. ' plan on concentrating on another proCect of mine, &eeping my home, and loving my husband and the children 4od has given me so that 4od(s Word is not blasphemed. )Titus IG*ML. ! special than& you to those who have read my blog the last year and a half. Here are a few 2ible verses that ' hope are an encouragement to you. Gods WORD Pa#%, a ser*ant o" God, and an a!ost%e o" -es#s 8hrist, accordin& to the "aith o" Gods e%ect, and the ac(now%ed&in& o" the tr#th which is a"ter &od%iness)

3n ho!e o" eterna% %i"e, which God, that cannot %ie, !ro$ised be"ore the wor%d
be&an)

5#t hath in d#e ti$es $ani"ested his word thro#&h !reachin&, which is co$$itted
#nto $e accordin& to the co$$and$ent o" God o#r a*io#r)+,Tit#s 1'1B/

0or the &race o" God that brin&eth sa%*ation hath a!!eared to a%% $en, Teachin& #s that, denyin& #n&od%iness and wor%d%y %#sts, we sho#%d %i*e sober%y,
ri&hteo#s%y, and &od%y, in this !resent wor%d)

2oo(in& "or that b%essed ho!e, and the &%orio#s a!!earin& o" the &reat God and
o#r a*io#r -es#s 8hrist)

Who &a*e hi$se%" "or #s, that he $i&ht redee$ #s "ro$ a%% ini1#ity, and !#ri"y
#nto hi$se%" a !ec#%iar !eo!%e, zea%o#s o" &ood wor(s.

These thin&s s!ea(, and eFhort, and reb#(e with a%% a#thority. 2et no $an des!ise
thee.+,Tit#s 4'11B16

2oo(in& #nto -es#s the a#thor and "inisher o" o#r "aith) who "or the Hoy that was
set be"ore hi$ end#red the cross, des!isin& the sha$e, and is set down at the ri&ht hand o" the throne o" God.+ ,Hebrews 14'4

3 eFhort there"ore, that, "irst o" a%%, s#!!%ications, !rayers, intercessions, and
&i*in& o" than(s, be $ade "or a%% $en)

0or (in&s, and "or a%% that are in a#thority) that we $ay %ead
a 1#iet and !eaceab%e %i"e in a%% &od%iness and honesty.

0or this is &ood and acce!tab%e in the si&ht o" God o#r a*io#r) Who wi%% ha*e a%% $en to be sa*ed, and to co$e #nto the (now%ed&e o" the tr#th.

0or there is one God, and one $ediator between God and $en, the $an 8hrist
-es#s)

Who &a*e hi$se%" a ranso$ "or a%%, to be testi"ied in d#e ti$e.+


,1 Ti$othy 4'1, 4, /

And that ye st#dy to be 1#iet, and to do yo#r own b#siness, and to wor( with yo#r
own hands, as we co$$anded yo#)+ ,1 Thessa%onians :'11

0ina%%y, brethren, !ray "or #s, that the word o" the 2ord $ay ha*e "ree co#rse, and
be &%ori"ied, e*en as it is with yo#'

And that we $ay be de%i*ered "ro$ #nreasonab%e and wic(ed $en' "or a%% $en
ha*e not "aith.

5#t the 2ord is "aith"#%, who sha%% stab%ish yo#, and (ee! yo# "ro$ e*i%.+,4
Thessa%onians /'1B/

CFa$ine yo#rse%*es, whether ye be in the "aith) !ro*e yo#r own se%*es. Inow ye
not yo#r own se%*es, how that -es#s 8hrist is in yo#, eFce!t ye be re!robates9+,4 8orinthians 1/'6

Pro*e a%% thin&s) ho%d "ast that which is &ood.+


,1 Thessa%onians 6'41

Then they that "eared the 2ORD s!a(e o"ten one to another' and the 2ORD
hear(ened, and heard it, and a boo( o" re$e$brance was written be"ore hi$ "or the$ that "eared the 2ORD, and that tho#&ht #!on his na$e.+,Ma%achi /'1.

http://justthebook.wordpress.com/