AW Tozer Reconsidered

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by asterisktom, Mar 9, 2010.

  1. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    A.W. Tozer Reconsidered

    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 no 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 Tozer's 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 don't 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 cross-examination. 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, don't shoot from the hip. Quote from the Book. I am certainly open to correction.

    Mystic Sidetracks
    Our author's 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", 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 Tozer's 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:[COLOR="DarkGreen"[I]]"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."[/I][/COLOR] - 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". [B]Nicolas, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila[/B] and many others of Tozer's "saints" [I]were active supporters of the anti-Christian papal system, and of the works-related method of salvation.[/I] 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 Tozer's 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, "[I]Knowledge of the Holy"[/I], for instance, there are at least eighteen quotes that are to be found.
    [COLOR="Navy"]
    An "Open Secret" or a Second Work of Grace?[/COLOR]
    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 Tozer's 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 Tozer's 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, I'd ask him for a reference. If he could not show me where it is found in the Bible, I would bow out and say, I'm awfully sorry, you don't 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 God's 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 wasn't just being bitter and overly fault-finding. 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 someone's 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.
     
  2. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Part two on AW Tozer

    Two passages (underline 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 must 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 wouldn't 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 Tozer's, 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 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 Tozer's 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. Let's not overreact."

    I wish that were so. Let's 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 Tozer's.

    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

    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 don't 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 Tozer's instruction of how to approach God.
     
  3. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sure would be helpful if you put page numbers with your quotes. I would like to be able to read the quotes in their entire context.
     
  4. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Its late tonight. When I come home from work tomorrow I will see if I can't scrounge the books up and put those numbers in.
     
  5. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom, I appreciate what you are trying to say about Tozer. I must draw to your attention, that Tozer was Christian and Missionary Alliance and not Baptist.

    I must also add that Tozer grew in understanding as he aged, but terminology is definitely dated to his time and my time. For example, we used the word "religion" in a way that would not be used to-day. So the language that we grew up with also differs to this day. I face it all the time.

    Then, I was a personal friend of Tozer, in Toronto, up to and including his death. He was strong in leadership of a holiness group, and a solid Bible teacher in the Avenue Road Alliance Church. He placed the Bible above all else as the leading authority available to man.

    As far as quoting various sources, it is not totally uncommon for Baptists, even to-day, to openly quote from such men as Barth and even German rationalists, without stating their falsehoods. Carl Henry was often quoted and he was the leader of neo-evangelicalism with his monthly paper, Christianity To-day. So, it is not uncommon to quote, what we may deem to be spurious sources, as we preach or even wrie articles.

    I should like half the men I know, includiing myself, to have a fraction of the spiritual values that Tozer expressed over his lifetime.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  6. GBC Pastor

    GBC Pastor
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even the Apostle Paul quoted from extra-biblical sources i.e. Greek philosophers.
     
  7. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    The Way of the Mystics &
    Roots of AW Tozer's Righteousness

    "Lloyd-Jones, you and I hold just about the same position on spiritual matters, but we have come to this position by different routes."

    This comment from A.W. Tozer was made to the famous British preacher and author Martin-Lloyd Jones at a Bible Conference where both were scheduled speakers. Intrigued by this, Lloyd-Jones asked what he meant. Tozer responded:

    "Well, you came by way of the Puritans ... and I came by way of the mystics."

    Lloyd-Jones conceded the point. * But perhaps we should consider this point more closely, because this is the key to understanding the heart of A.W. Tozer's theology, and the serious error that is at that very heart.

    This article will examine the following:

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

    Please read this article with an unbiased heart and mind. I did a lot of research into this man, a man I once greatly admired - as perhaps you do - and I did it with an open Bible, just like Tozer oftentimes suggests. But the more I studied him the more admiration waned, and was replaced by alarm - and exasperation.

    First of all: Was this merely an unguarded or isolated remark? Or has he spoken elsewhere in the same vein?

    Consider the following three quotations. Italics added:
    1. "For myself, I am reverently concerned that I teach nothing but Christ crucified. For me to accept a teaching, or even an emphasis, I must be persuaded that it is scriptural and altogether apostolic in spirit and temper. And it must be in full harmony with the best in the historic church and in the tradition marked by the finest devotional works, the sweetest and most radiant hymnody and the loftiest experiences revealed in Christian biography."

    "It must live within the pattern of truth that gave us such saintly souls as Bernard of Clairvaux, John of the Cross, Molinos, Nicholas of Cusa, John Fletcher, David Brainerd, Reginal Heber, Evan Roberts, General Booth and a host of other souls who, while they were less gifted and lesser known, constitute what Dr. Paul S. Rees (in another context) calls "the seed of survival". And his term is apt, for it was such extraordinary Christians as these who saved Christianity from collapsing under the sheer weight of the spiritual mediocrity it was compelled to carry." From "Keys to the Deeper Life", "A New Yearning Among Evangelicals" (1957, Sunday Magazine)

    2."The devotional works that have appeared have been so varied as to make classification difficult. Some of the great names are Meister Eckhart, Bernard of Clairvaux, Jan van Ruysbroeck, Michael Molinos, John of the Cross, Thomas Traherne, Richard Rolle, William Law, Walter Hilton, Francis de Sales, Jakob Boehme and Gerhart Tersteegen. To those might be added the more familiar names of Fenelon, [Madame] Guyon and Thomas Kempis."

    "To a large extent these were universal Christians who experienced the grace of God so deeply and so broadly that they encompassed the spiritual possibilities of all men and were able to set forth their religious experiences in language acceptable to Christians of various ages and varying doctrinal viewpoints."

    Tozer ends this devotional with the following thought:

    "How much we owe to those who walked with God in days past and left to us a record of their experiences. Their religious context, terminology and practice may differ from ours but their love for Christ shines through. They goad us toward God!" From the devotional "Books to be Chewed and Digested", "The use and Abuse of Good Books."

    In this next quote Tozer laments the fallen state of Christianity today. We would agree, but look at who he points back to as our former high point:

    3. "The passionate adorations of Teresa and Madame Guyon are a thing of the past. Christianity has fallen into the hands of leaders who knew not Joseph. The very memory of better days is slowly passing from us and a new type of religious person is emerging. How is the gold tarnished and the silver become lead! If Bible Christianity is to survive the present world upheaval, we shall need to recapture the spirit of worship." From "That Incredible Christian", chapter entitled "The Art of True Worship"

    These three excerpts from Tozer sufficiently demonstrate the high regard he has for the mystics of the past. More than this, they demonstrate that he regards them as not the extremity or fringe of Christianity, but as the epitome of "Bible Christanity" and exemplars of the "spirit of worship". It should not be missed that, whatever necessary prefatory praise is first given to the Bible and the teaching of "Christ crucified", these saints that he lists - and a minority that he lists, like Brainerd, truly are - are set forth as our true examples to be emulated.

    These are Tozer's "extraordinary Christians", "universal Christians". They are the very "seed of [the church's] survival" who "saved Christianity". This is a common motif with him. Anyone who has a read a number of his books has come across this recurring theme. According to Tozer, these extraordinary people experienced very much what we need today.

    But is this true? And are all these - scripturally speaking - saints? Not at all. Many of them were not only well-within the Roman Catholic Church (as would be expected for the times), but were also avowedly anti-Reformation and, thus, anti-Christian.

    Teresa of Avila, one of Tozer's "incredible Christians", in her book "Way of Perfection" (a book highly praised by him) complained about "the harm and havoc being wrought in France by these Lutherans and the way in which their unhappy sect was increasing." She continued:

    "This troubled me very much, and, as though I could do anything, or be of any help in the matter, I wept before the Lord and entreated Him to remedy this great evil. I felt that I would have laid down a thousand lives to save a single one of all the souls that were being lost there." **

    Of whom is she speaking? These are none other than the Huguenots, many of whom paid the ultimate price for their faith during the infamous Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre. And who does AW Tozer praise as being examples for modern Christians? Not them - but her!

    So what's the big deal?
    A Reformed brother warned me in a friendly manner that I shouldn't go off on this "rabbit-trail against Tozer", but should rather tackle the real enemies of biblical Christianity like Rick Warren. But Rick Warren already has - and even more since the time this well-meaning advice was offered - plenty of critiquers, especially among Reformed writers.

    But such is not the case with A.W. Tozer. The Bibles have not been so readily applied to Tozer as to Warren. He, surprisingly, is often even showcased, prominently blurbed on many of their sites, and spoken well of by some of those same writers who critique Warren. This seems to be true, especially, of Reformed writers. This is where, I believe, their blind-spot is. The Bible is not applied to him as much because Tozer seems to already apply it to himself, and to preface and pepper his mystic encomiums with requisite Scriptural references.

    Yet here is what seems to missed all too often: Tozer does not apply Scripture nearly as much as he alludes to it. He applies it selectively and illustratively ***, and not in context "To the Word and to the Testimony. If they do not speak according to this Word, there is no light in them!", Isa. 8:20.

    More on this topic soon.

    This article is part of an ongoing project. Previous entries on this topic are these:
    AW Tozer Reconsidered
    Tozer and Calvinism
    Tozer's Order of Salvation (Who's initiative is it in salvation?)
    Tozer's Dangerous tenets

    The first and last articles, especially, deal with this influence of mysticism in Tozer's teaching. It is much greater than is recognized or acknowledged today, even among Reformed writers.



    Notes
    * Martin-Lloyd Jones, sadly, as it turned out, toward the end of his life, conceded more than this point. His less-than-vigorous resistance to "mystic Christianity" bore unforeseen fruit in his own ministry and, especially, in his legacy to the next generation in his own congregation. I believe his unwillingness to hold all experiences to a strict spiritual account, and his undiscerning allowance for continuity of spiritual sign-gifts in his church, resulted in the downfall of his very own church after his death. His successor took his church much further down the Charismatic road than Lloyd-Jones had intended.

    All of this underscores the importance of not deviating from the left or from the right of what the Bible teaches.

    ** Read more of Teresa's writings here (from catholicsclassics.com).

    *** One example out of many that could be found is how he uses the Bible in chapter five of "I call it Heresy!" Further exploration of this is found in this article.
     
  8. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Thank you for the feedback, Jim. I am aware that Tozer was not Baptist, but included him here because he is quite popular among Baptists.

    As far as referring to spurious or at least questionable sources, I am sure many of us do this from time to time because the person quoted does indeed have a good gem now and then. But Tozer goes beyond this. As I have shown in my more recent article, these (largely Roman Catholic) are a main authority in his teachings. He tries to bring them in along with Scripture.
     
  9. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Yes, but Paul did not:
    1. Quote extensively from them, as Tozer did
    2. Hold them up as model Christians, the "seed of survival" for the church.
     
  10. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    I was going to give page numbers for the Tozer citations but, on rereading my post, I see that they are sufficiently located by chapters. Since the chapters are short it shouldn't be too hard to find where I got actual quote. Some of them are from an online archive like
    http://www.theboc.com/freestuff/awtozer/
     
  11. Eagle

    Eagle
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Tom, My Sunday School class just recently began a study of The Pursuit Of God - my first reading of his work. I immediately saw the same concerns that you noticed, saw some others, & you showed me some others. I coined the (or applied) the phrase "anti-doctrinalist" to describe him. I had already (after only 3 chapters) expressed these concerns to the group leader - with a mixed result. I did this before stumbling onto your work here. I now have another well stated (better than I can) & thought out expression of my concerns. I thank you for taking the time & having the prescience to do this. I have been very dis-heartened by the considerable lack of critical material about Tozer on the internet -- as you have mentioned. It is an especially good witness from you having been a "follower" of Tozer in the past. To draw closer to God is, of course, nothing to discourage, however, Tozer, and his "mysticism," puts self-absorbed boundary-less experience over the two things god established to draw us closer to Him -- His Word & His Church. I look forward to reading more from you -- thanks again.

    Eagle
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Good post Eagle. I have a Gordon Clark book packed away in which he dismantles Tozer's approach. Do you have any of Gordon Clark's books Tom?
     
  13. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    I am very glad that all that work of mine is put to good use. This is always encouraging. And, yes, disheartening does result when you try and try to put across what (to us) seems so obvious.

    I would write now but we are now in Guatemala (Huehuetenango) and have slow internet at this cyber. We will be back in a week.

    I do have a few more articles to do in a few weeks, Lord willingh.

    Take care, brother.
     
  14. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    No, I donĀ“t. I will google him when I get back to the US.
     

Share This Page

Loading...