Tozer and the Order of Salvation

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by asterisktom, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Tozer and the Order of Salvation

    One of the more popular of Tozer's 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 Tozer's 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 Tozer's perceived order of salvation (Ordo Salutis*). 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 Christ's atonement was provisionally universal**, 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 God's sheep hear.

    Tozer's "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 Tozer's soteriology, as we see in two paragraphs of TSV especially. 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 doesn't. 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 misinterpretation 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 would-be Christian.

    Back to Tozer's 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.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continued in next post
     
    #1 asterisktom, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2012
  2. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Tozer & the Order of Slavation (Part Two)

    (Continued from previous post)

    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 doesn't 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 (Tozer's 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 Lydia's heart to listen to Paul's 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 Tozer's "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 can't.

    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 don't have to worry about whether this is God's Word. We know that it is. We don't have to strain over subjective "voices". We have the blessed objective Word of Life!

    And we don't have to agonize over it's 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).


    Tozer's 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.
    ------------------

    Footnotes
    * 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 God's (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?"

    ** "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.
     
    #2 asterisktom, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2012
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    It's been many years since I was a "devotional" book reader but I was avid (though not well disciplined) when I was.

    Tozer and Ravenhill (Meat For Men) were among my favorites.

    I don't remember details but generally I never thought Tozer or Ravenhill went "over the line" in terms of subjective mysticism (which it is somewhat by definition).

    If we are "led of the Spirit" and "live in the Spirit" that in and of itself would mean that each of us has a unique leading in our specific lives does it not?

    Ephesians 4
    11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
    12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:​

    Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:​

    HankD​
     
    #3 HankD, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    I am sorry but I could not wade through the studied confusion presented in posts 1 and 2.

    Did Christ die for all mankind, or only for the elect? All mankind, 1 John 2:2. To call this foundational truth an assumption is without merit. God desires all men to be saved, therefore to say Christ only provided the means of salvation for the few that find the narrow path is again without merit.

    Second, while it is true that not all men can understand the gospel because they or God has hardened their hearts, three of the four soils of Matthew 13 could hear, understand and respond. The reference to John 10 and My sheep hear My voice is yet again without merit. This says that those who belong to Christ can understand what Christ is saying, it does not address whether or not those not yet His Sheep can understand part or all of His teachings.

    Paul teaches us that men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel, but not spiritual meat because they are not indwelt.

    Now back to the Biblical order of salvation. Before time began, Christ was chosen to be the lamb of God, therefore the fallen nature of mankind was known before creation, for you do not choose a Redeemer without knowing of those who need redemption.

    Next, when God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, He chose us corporately as believers to be redeemed, for you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem. Therefore He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4

    During our lifetime, after we have lived as children of wrath without mercy, God chooses us individually based on crediting our faith as righteousness and putting us spiritually in Christ. 2 Thessalonians 2:13

    Once God puts us in Christ, positional sanctification, we are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and to be resurrected in glorified bodies at Christ's second coming, our ultimate sanctification.
     
  5. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    I say we exhume the poor man's corpse, place it on trial for heresy, then burn it at the stake.
     
  6. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Since it is God alone who credits our faith as righteous, our "reaching out to God" is not the first move, for we are responding to being drawn by God's lovingkindness, and since salvation does not depend upon the man who wills or runs, but upon God who has mercy, anyone who says our faith somehow merits salvation is pushing false doctrine.
    Before salvation all our works of righteousness are as filty rags, but God alone turns the rag of faith into the righteousness of God.
     
  7. Jim1999

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

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ died for all, but instead of some. Hence, we preach the gospel of saving faith to all. Most calvinists I ever knew preached this gospel, including Mr. Spurgeon.

    Growing up a good friend of Mr. Tozer, I will never challenge the areas of theology where we differed. He was Christian and Missionary Alliance and not Baptist. When on our knees, we prayed to the same God, for the same Spirit, and in the same Jesus' name.

    When preaching, we reached out to all mankind in the hope that some would come. As a frail human, I readily acknowledge I cannot possibly understand all things eternal, so I preach as a man to men, my calvinistic theology aside. Tozer did the same.

    Tozer died on his knees after praying all night. His wife found him on his knees, head resting on his open Bible. I have no doubt he was in the presence of our holy God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

    I could never deny my fellow brethren in Christ because we differ on the five points. It does not change my theology, but maintains fellowship in Christ.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     

Share This Page

Loading...