Christian mysticism

I am stuck with this question I can't figure out.Is Christian mysticism Christian or occult. I'm thinking about people like st. John of the cross, madame Guyon, and Fenelon. I used to be involved in the New age and the occult and I must say there seems to be a fine line between the occult and Christian mysticism if any at all. I have not read much of their stuff though for a few reasons:1. They are more connected with general mysticism than Christianity2. Jesus is mentioned very little along with salvation 3. The bible seems very unimportant to them4. To me they seem to chase experience more than truth5. They seem to look more to their own soul and calling that God.Most importantly after reading writings of St. John of the Cross I went into his version of contamplative prayer. I ended up in a mostly unconcious state jumping up quickly in fear after a voice said something to the point of "call on the name of who you want".However, Leonard Ravenhill, who I greatly admire, speaks of these people with very high regard. Any help appreciated

Hi Ryan,Great question and glad you are asking it, especially in this day and age we live in. Personally I err on the side of caution which is likely borne out of just what I have experienced since this grand journey began.There are others here that would have equal concerns on this and also a lot more versed on those and others you mentioned. A.W. Tozer seemed to be particularly fond of many of these Christian 'mystics' and for a man with his head firmly attached to his shoulders he may well be one to perhaps glean from in this whole area... Look for some links from the 'tozerphiles' amongst us shortly.Seems that as in a lot of things in this walk a lot may depend on "where your head is at". Meaning, there may be a time and place for this just as well as a wrong time. It took me awhile to realize a truism that we are not always ready for certain things yet. The Lord may well have us concentrating on one area while though all well and good to us we go off and away to something more 'appealing'. And if we are really attentive to that prompting of the Holy Spirit, we usually know it.A lot of the faith is 'mystic' in the sense of we are still natural beings with inherent damage. Like the way Oswald Chambers put it;"First Corinthians 15:46 ("However, the spiritual is not first but the natural; and afterward the spiritual") lays down the fundamental basis of the way God deals with man all through - first the natural, then the spiritual. The whole purpose of a human personality is to turn the natural life into a spiritual life by sacrifice. The Bible never speaks of the natural life as sinful; it contrasts it with the spiritual, for example, "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God ... nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spirtual judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)That to me is truly mystical.God is mystical as in mysterious...Probably a good time for some definitions now that I think about it and I need them. MysteryMYS'TERY, n. [L. mysterium; Gr. a secret. This word in Greek is rendered also murium latibulum; but probably both senses are from that of hiding or shutting; Gr. to shut, to conceal.1. A profound secret; something wholly unknown or something kept cautiously concealed, and therefore exciting curiosity or wonder; such as the mystery of the man with the iron mask in France.2. In religion, any thing in the character or attributes ofGod, or in the economy of divine providence, which is not revealed to man.3. That which is beyond human comprehension until explained. In this sense, mystery often conveys the idea of something awfully sublime or important; something that excites wonder.Great is the mystery of godliness. 1 Tim 3.Having made known to us the mystery of his will. Eph 1.We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery. 1 Cor 2.4. An enigma; any thing artfully made difficult.5. A kind of ancient dramatic representation.6. A trade; a calling; any mechanical occupation which supposes skill or knowledge peculiar to those who carry it on, and therefore a secret to others.[The word in the latter sense has been supposed to have a different origin from the foregoing, viz.]MysticMYS'TICMYS'TICAL, a. [L.mysticus.] Obscure; hid; secret.1. Sacredly obscure or secret; remote from human comprehension.God hath revealed a way mystical and supernatural.2. Involving some secret meaning; allegorical; emblematical; as mystic dance; mystic Babylon.Few more thoughts...

This may be seemingly alluding your original question, but just trying to get some stability, hopefully, first.Think that we all have the difficulty in always discerning our 'experience' of what the Lord may be working in and out of us. For instance the whole area of prophecy...who are we to believe?And what exactly is 'prophecy' as it relates to us now in this time compared to the Old Testament prophets and even the New Testament prophets at the time Jesus was walking this earth and shortly there after?It is all a bit mysterious, no?What about our own walk with the Lord, the things we believe He is 'telling' us through the Holy Spirit. We can't have no experience and just academics or head knowledge and yet we can't rely on our feelings and make them gospel either.We have to have a standard that we can draw from that is absolute and unchanging and that is why we are so adamant about Gods Word being authoritative and the final word that we judge all our experience against; if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. 1Ti 1:10,11If what these past saints have written doesn't contradict scripture we haven't gone to far, but their particular experience's don't necessarily mean they are all from God either, it could be their own mind, wishful thinking, emotionalism and even the devils minions, any number of things. I have had some very peculiar things happen and come through my experience that I don't know what to make of, some of them quite bizarre. "Always" is a difficult word to apply to the Christian faith all the time, some things are just left in abeyance until another time or perhaps the right time. It does seem that all lot of the other oddities just fall to the wayside over time, you would think that if they were important enough you would know it, recognize it.Motives, the issues of the heart, what kind of believers are we talking about? Is their lives reflective of what is true? Think it really is a matter of discernment and there is much that can be gleaned form these 'mystics', I wonder how comfortable they might have been with that tag attached to their names. But still, we have to be Berean minded in all things. Rambling again, hope this makes some kind of sense. 1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The plain man’s mysteryServants, in the same way, must be reverent, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for money; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 1Tim 3:8-9Faith, the walk with the Lord in the Spirit, is indeed a mysterious realm. Man is created for it, but abhors it or corrupts it.This mystery develops in the inner man and causes reverberations in the outer realm, holy living, caring for the poor, benevolence, truth seeking, veracity.It is a ministry of the interior, a serving of the Lord on His own terms – God is Spirit, the one worshipping must do it in spirit and in thruth.The mystery is the intense longing for Him, and him alone.The mystery is the intense longing to serve Him, a longing which cannot be satisfied.The mystery is the intense longing to give all and everything to Him.The mystery is the intense longing for togetherness, fellowship and interaction. Who may ascend to the Lord’s hill?Learning to listen to Him, learning to walk with Him, learning to obey Him, learning to wait before Him - that is the mystery.It is done in a mysterious ministry in the interior. It is done as service unto men in the outer realm. It is to be done solely as a result of the work of the Cross applied by the Holy Spirit unto the glory of the Lord.There are no mysterious techniques. Stillness and fellowship is the way.There are no extras – nothing outside what is once and for all written in the Book.There are no bonuses or blessings but the fellowship before the Throne – God rules.There are no advanced, mysterious orders and measurements – the plain man is invited to a steady walk unto maturity in Christ.Lars W.

hi ryan386I am probably the most suspicious of the mystics on this site and have raised my anxieties from time to time. (not that I am a suspicious mystic ;-) but am suspicious of the mystics)We need to differentiate between mysterious and mystical. The word mystic comes from the root from which we get words like 'mum' and 'mime' meaning something which was without words and hence 'secret'. The word mystery when used in scripture does not mean either mysterious or mystical it means an uncovered secret. Something that was there all the time but was then revealed (unveiled). Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; (Eph 3:4-5 KJV)Mysticism is a phenomena which is found in all religions (and I am choosing my words carefully). It is the basis of the transcendental meditation which undergirds Buddhism and Hinduism. It is found in the Jewish Kabbalah (it is an integral part of Chasidic Judaism) and among the Muslim Sufis. And it is found in mediaeval Catholicism. Latterly, of course, it has reared its head in New Age. Some theologians have concluded that it is the basic element of religion and hence the common core for all experience of God.Its worrying aspects are many but my main concerns are that it teaches that sin can be cleansed and the human nature refined by self induced suffering. Suffering cleanses, or so the mystics teach. In order to speed the cleansing increase the suffering. Consequently some beautiful hymn writers, in particular F W Faber (who was Tozer’s favourite) wore horse-hair shirts to be uncomfortable and practised self-flagellation (beating himself with a leather whip). Faber had strange visions of seeing the blood flow in certain artists’ pictures of Christ. He was part of the Oxford movement which in the 19th century tried to lead the Anglican church back to Roman Catholicism with people like Newham and Pusey. Here is a little quotation from Faber that will give you an idea of his theology relating to the continual priesthood of Mary; “Mary was the minister of the Incarnation: that explains everything. She had as little the right to come down from Calvary as a priest would have to leave the altar while the sacrifice of Mass is going on. It was an unfortunate coincidence of dates. On one March the 25th, she had given Christ his precious blood; on another March 25th she had to perform her ministry while his blood was being poured out. She had to lay him down in the tomb after having laid him down in the manger. She had to preside over the completion, as she had presided over its beginning . . . . Her priesthood consisted in her continuous ministry to him.” (The Foot of the Cross, London 1857, p. 399.)I will illustrate the problem from Faber’s best known hymn; “I worship thee sweet will of God”. There are some wonderful sentiments in this hymn, but one verse gives the game away…He always wins who sides with God,To him no chance is lost;God’s Will is sweetest to him whenIt triumphs at his cost.You will see that this stanza ends with the concept of cost. Who is paying the price? Faber is. The stanza tells us that God’s will is sweetest when it hurts the most; this is classic mysticism. My pain is pleasant because it is my contribution to God’s work of salvation in me. The asceticism of the mystic is just moderated pain. To enjoy pain is not spiritual it is masochism.My second concern is that mystics do not believe in regeneration they believe in the merging of God’s Spirit with man’s spirit through transcendental meditation; trance states which leave the soul wide open in passive states to every wandering spirit. This is deadly. As I blank out all other things my mind becomes open to divine influences. God’s Spirit percolates into mine and we become One. This is not union with Christ by Spirit Baptism but achieved divinity by passivity. There is no need for repentance or regeneration in mysticism, all that is needed is ‘union’ facilitated by meditation.Mysticism also maps out ‘dark nights of the soul’ in which the saint loses all conscious fellowship with God as a prelude to greater blessing and revelations. Of course, they would point to many who have experiences such things; Oswald Chambers is the evangelical’s main example. But the incident of such an experience is very different to the expectation of a definite step in the mystic’s pilgrimage.Some who are less suspicious than me will no doubt be saying ‘but doesn’t Paul say..?’ Of course, every counterfeit has its genuine. The enemy of men’s souls knows that the closer to the truth he gets the more likely he is to convince men of his lies. There are aspects of mysticism that could be fitted into Christianity; my concern is that they fit so neatly into Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, Kabbalah, Catholicism and New Age as well.Tozer, and many others, have judged that the benefits of mystic insights outweigh its dangers. My own view is the exact opposite.

Doesn’t it cost us something to walk with the Lord?Who will ascend to the Holy hill of the Lord?What doe the overcomers do but preparing way for the Lord to establish a testimony in the individual as well as in the collective setting.What does obedience mean, if not a price to be paid in turning away from what is of the world to the things of Heaven.What is the Cross of Christ all about? A completion of a marvellous work of salvation, yet a dramatic operation daily in each and every saint. Is it not painful to be put under discipline?What about the putting off. . . for the sake of putting on?What does it cost not being led to compromise or being moulded by the world?What does the apostle speak about, saying “I count it all a loss to be able to lay hold of? I forsake what lies in the days gone to be able to grasp and lay hold of in the future”. What about his beatings and flagellations? I must pay whatever I can to lay hold of that for which I have been laid hold of.Grace is not cheap.We have put this mystery aside in our modern Christianity and has become spiritual dwarfs, driven by a desire for affluence.Grace is not cheap.The mystery of the Cross of Christ must be recovered and displayed and explained to Christians and non-christians.This mystery of being made a saint and a faithful must be recovered and lived in the face of the many, who use every faith technique to secure blessing and the ones who look at faith as another mind-game.Such grace is not cheap.Lars W.

Hi LarsI believe you are misunderstanding the true nature of mysticism. Doesn’t it cost us something to walk with the Lord?Who will ascend to the Holy hill of the Lord?Anyone who is conscious of the cost is not experiencing the walk. What doe the overcomers do but preparing way for the Lord to establish a testimony in the individual as well as in the collective setting.What does obedience mean, if not a price to be paid in turning away from what is of the world to the things of Heaven.This is not the kind of cost that is in incurred in mysticism. This is simple obedience. The mystic makes his suffering the route to God; this is unbiblical. confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. (Act 14:22 ASV) Tribulation is the inevitable route but not the means. Mysticism makes tribulation, and self-induced tribulation, the means of deeper entrance. What is the Cross of Christ all about? A completion of a marvellous work of salvation, yet a dramatic operation daily in each and every saint. Is it not painful to be put under discipline?What about the putting off. . . for the sake of putting on?Do you make no distinction between discipline and masochism? What does it cost not being led to compromise or being moulded by the world?What does the apostle speak about, saying “I count it all a loss to be able to lay hold of? I forsake what lies in the days gone to be able to grasp and lay hold of in the future”. What about his beatings and flagellations? I must pay whatever I can to lay hold of that for which I have been laid hold of.Grace is not cheap.If I make anything the means of my salvation and progress in grace I have introduced LAW. Paul’s beatings and flagellations were not self-imposed. I am shocked that you can’t see the difference. We have put this mystery aside in our modern Christianity and has become spiritual dwarfs, driven by a desire for affluence.Grace is not cheap.What mystery? Mysticism was never part of revealed Christianity; it is pagan. The mystery of the Cross of Christ must be recovered and displayed and explained to Christians and non-christians.This mystery of being made a saint and a faithful must be recovered and lived in the face of the many, who use every faith technique to secure blessing and the ones who look at faith as another mind-game.Such grace is not cheap.The mystery of the cross has nothing to do with mysticism which is a ‘faith technique to secure blessing’.

I do not misunderstand the true nature of the ministry of the interior.We do not accept your definitions, and many theologian’s definitions of mysticism as being equal to proper definitions of experiencing the fellowship of the Lord.You are trying to bind us to your definitions and are eager locking us into a system which is far too narrow, a mind game which excludes much of the walk with the Lord as something which one should shun.We do not accept being associated with something which holds no value simply because of the fact that some words are used to express a desire to reach out for reality when our ways and their ways of reaching out are incompatible.My line: Doesn’t it cost us something to walk with the Lord?Who will ascend to the Holy hill of the Lord?Mr. Baily answers: Anyone who is conscious of the cost is not experiencing the walk.My response: A ridiculous conclusion. The burden of the Lord in prayer and intercession – something which should be considered to be an experience not in line with Christian maturity.Mr. Baily’s line: This is not the kind of cost that is in incurred in mysticism. This is simple obedience.My comment: Precisely. Then, accept our definition of mysticism as something other than, something very different from the harsh theologian rejection of Catholic mysticism.My statement first and then Mr. Baily’s response:What is the Cross of Christ all about? A completion of a marvellous work of salvation, yet a dramatic operation daily in each and every saint. Is it not painful to be put under discipline?What about the putting off. . . for the sake of putting on?Do you make no distinction between discipline and masochism?To this one can only respond quite exhausted: Can’t you see the difference between what we should do as being born again in cooperation with the Holy Spirit and the frantic efforts of the deluded mind trying to save himself.Can’t you see that the plain man’s mysticism, the fellowship and walk with the Lord in obedience is something which a heart won for the Lord is eagerly pursuing.This is not to introduce anything of the Law, it is a joyous response to grace allowing Him to bring the saint to maturity, a Pauline partaking of the sufferings of Christ – not chosen and exercised by man but brought in by the Lord to bring us through by grace.We are by this talking about the Mystery of Christ which Paul saw fit to give up all to attain to, not mysticism introduced by the sinner to try to survive before the Throne.A word study would reveal the dichotomy between the two – mystery and mysticism, and, positively speaking you are good at such. The difference would become obvious at once.The problem is quite often that the theologian rather enjoys systematising life than living it. The bright mind is its own enemy in the ways of the Lord.At the end of it all, we seem to agree:The mystery of the cross has nothing to do with mysticism which is a ‘faith technique to secure blessing’.Lars

mys•ti•cism (m s t -s z m)(Literature, Philosophy, Religion)n.1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.3. Vague, groundless speculation.this definition has no points of contact with 'the ministry of the interior'.Perhaps you are wondering why I have taken such a strong stance in this thread. We recently had a thread which touched on astrology and which all agreed was foolish or dangerous according to its pretended or real practice. Mysticism is the doorway into the occult; this is why I am taking a stand. We do not accept your definitions, and many theologian’s definitions of mysticism as being equal to proper definitions of experiencing the fellowship of the Lord.You are trying to bind us to your definitions and are eager locking us into a system which is far too narrow, a mind game which excludes much of the walk with the Lord as something which one should shun.We do not accept being associated with something which holds no value simply because of the fact that some words are used to express a desire to reach out for reality when our ways and their ways of reaching out are incompatible.What is the point of using theological terms if you are going to redefine them. This is the theology of Humpty Dumpty.. `When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.' We cannot redefine theological terminology in this way. These are not my definitions of mysticism, they are what mysticism. If you are not supporting mysticism but something else please call it something else otherwise language serves no purpose. If you tell me you are a practising mystic in the normal theological use of that term, then I tell you that you are dabbling with the occult and our fellowship is at an end. My line: Doesn’t it cost us something to walk with the Lord?Who will ascend to the Holy hill of the Lord?Mr. Baily answers: Anyone who is conscious of the cost is not experiencing the walk.My response: A ridiculous conclusion. The burden of the Lord in prayer and intercession – something which should be considered to be an experience not in line with Christian maturity. I maintain that anyone whose consciousness of the cost of fellowship with God is not enjoying the walk. The consciousness of such a walk is sheer privilege. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. (2Co 4:17-18 KJV) Mr. Baily’s line: This is not the kind of cost that is in incurred in mysticism. This is simple obedience.My comment: Precisely. Then, accept our definition of mysticism as something other than, something very different from the harsh theologian rejection of Catholic mysticism.You can’t use the word mysticism without including its manifestations in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc If you mean conscious fellowship with God in waiting upon Him in the fellowship of His word, please say so, but don’t say that this is mysticism. My statement first and then Mr. Baily’s response:What is the Cross of Christ all about? A completion of a marvellous work of salvation, yet a dramatic operation daily in each and every saint. Is it not painful to be put under discipline?What about the putting off. . . for the sake of putting on?I don’t deny there is pain in the Christian pilgrimage, but I deny that it is to be sought. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Heb 12:11 KJV) This is not true for the mystic; he seeks the pain as a means to purification. To this one can only respond quite exhausted: Can’t you see the difference between what we should do as being born again in cooperation with the Holy Spirit and the frantic efforts of the deluded mind trying to save himself.Can’t you see that the plain man’s mysticism, the fellowship and walk with the Lord in obedience is something which a heart won for the Lord is eagerly pursuing. I can see the difference only too well. The first is Christianity the second is mysticism; they are mutually exclusive. We are by this talking about the Mystery of Christ which Paul saw fit to give up all to attain to, not mysticism introduced by the sinner to try to survive before the Throne.A word study would reveal the dichotomy between the two – mystery and mysticism, and, positively speaking you are good at such. The difference would become obvious at once.The problem is quite often that the theologian rather enjoys systematising life than living it. The bright mind is its own enemy in the ways of the Lord.The difference is obvious at once to anyone who has known anything about mysticism. I will leave your judgment of ‘theologians’ and ‘bright minds’ and your conclusion that living truth and understanding it are alternatives; I don’t think it deserves an answer. At the end of it all, we seem to agree:The mystery of the cross has nothing to do with mysticism which is a ‘faith technique to secure blessing’. which is why the mystery of the cross and mysticism are mutually exclusive.

I deeply respect what Brother Ron and Brother Lars have to say and their insights I often find are very helpful. I have to say in this thread that I'm rather disappointed in the attitudes presented here."Humpty Dumpty" theology? Is this really Christ-like? Is this what the Holy Spirit gave to you in your prayer closet? I ask that both of you as moderators reconsider how you converse with one another. In addition, I ask that consider the spirit in which your arguments are being made. Is it really to help Brother Ryan or to an attempt to convince us that you're right and the other person is wrong? I'm not suggesting that we always agree on everything but once we go beyond articulating our particular position and attack one another, it surely must grieve the Holy Spirit.1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Mr. Baily,Again, we must declare that the walk with the Lord, the ministry of the interior has nothing to do with the mysticism you are so eager to attack and to destroy.It is not fair to put labels on us which does not match what we stand for.It holds no wisdom to put us in boxes in which we do not fit, in which we do not belong.What is the point of defining anything, if the definitions are not rightly used. Mysticism may be rightly defined by what you put forth, but if you at the same time try to fit us in within this framework you are certainly missing the mark and doing a forum of discussion a disfavour.You are accusing us of maintaining positions theologically which we do not maintain or adhere to. And by doing so, your case is lost.Mysticism belongs to the realm of the salvation of self.Ministry before the Lord is never self-imposed, self-exalting or a means of salvation.Mysticism opens a door to the realm of spiritual vanity and deception.Ministry before the Lord leads to maturity and veracity.Mysticism holds no benefits.Ministry unto the Lord serves every level of reality and is therefore costly and it includes a price for anyone who dare to engage in the struggle.Lars W.

Dear Ed, readers and friends. . .The fellowship, the communion with the Lord in its various aspects – prayer, worship and a walk in fidelity and truthfulness, engages my heart and thinking intensely.I could not but move into this thread with some sharp words as I saw some valuable items go down the drain by a somewhat careless treatment of the subject.The mystery of Christ and mysticism are not interchangeable concepts. We do well to point this out. We, Mr. Baily and I, do things quite differently, our thinking takes us to positions which seem to contradict each other, our characters are perhaps not adjusted to each other – I cannot say for sure and I hope for the better, but I do not hesitate to say that our faith is going to take us both to Heaven dressed in white.

Wow,I was awaiting the results here from our beloved brothers and it was not a mystery that two of our 'elders' if I may borrow the usage might have something to say on this topic.A couple of observations. In a strange way it seems that Lars and Ron are both saying the same thing but perhaps it is the definition and it's borders that are confusing.The warnings I can appreciate and side up with easily enough. Our imaginations can run off into all kinds of areas without a guard, a guide, a map. When we start adding things or detracting or misapplying...what's the word...extrapolation?Philologos (Ron) stated:Mysticism is a phenomena which is found in all religions (and I am choosing my words carefully). It is the basis of the transcendental meditation which undergirds Buddhism and Hinduism. It is found in the Jewish Kabbalah (it is an integral part of Chasidic Judaism) and among the Muslim Sufis. And it is found in mediaeval Catholicism. Latterly, of course, it has reared its head in New Age. Some theologians have concluded that it is the basic element of religion and hence the common core for all experience of God.Which being obviously a complete misrepresentation of true belief also makes for a cozy dismissal of the facts in our case as Christians. Our faith is worked out of the evidence already plainly stated in scripture and is proved by our dispositions being changed from the inside out, not by self effort of the sort that causes one to impose upon himself extracurriculars as a means to gaining that which is already freely given.Being transformed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ought to be mystical enough in my honest opinion.Have certainly more questions than answers. It seems by attaching "ism" to the end of 'mystic' is where the trouble lies. Is it an all including camp? To interject the origins of this posting back into the conversation, are these mentioned all to be dismissed? Honest questions, not provoking here...that inflection thing...(maybe we need little 'inflection' icons, i.e. 'serious', 'ticked-off', 'kidding', 'honest' etc....would probably make it hard to read...how about just 'patience'?) Are they as Ron stated to 'dangerous' to even approach? I completely understand the theory of 'a little leaven' and know what gets my own dander up ie WOF, prosperity, etc.Maybe our friend has already answered his own original question in that it was raising red flags and causing some hesitancy. Which is why I alluded earlier to the issue of discernment.At the same time wondering if it all needs to be corralled into the same container though. Perhaps some examples from the mentioned names would be of some help to unravel the thought process here. Looking forward to more of the congenial discussion that we are so familiar with. 8-)

Mr Widerberg The fellowship, the communion with the Lord in its various aspects – prayer, worship and a walk in fidelity and truthfulness, engages my heart and thinking intensely.And mine, but then this has nothing at all to do with mysticism. I think because I believe not the other way around. I could not but move into this thread with some sharp words as I saw some valuable items go down the drain by a somewhat careless treatment of the subject. ryan’s original post: Most importantly after reading writings of St. John of the Cross I went into his version of contamplative prayer. I ended up in a mostly unconcious state jumping up quickly in fear after a voice said something to the point of "call on the name of who you want". From such a plea came my ‘careless treatment’. Following classical ‘christian’ mystic practice will open a man up the occult. ryan’s original post: I used to be involved in the New age and the occult and I must say there seems to be a fine line between the occult and Christian mysticism if any at all.I agree with ryan. Keep away from it. I first encountered the preaching and writing of A W Tozer over 40 years ago. I have received his ministry ever since, but his recommendation of the mystics I think was a mistake. I have a list his recommended books from the mystics; I would recommend that Christians, and particularly young Christians, give them a wide berth. Mike, I think, suggested examples. I am loathe to provide such. ] ryan’s original post: I have not read much of their stuff though for a few reasons:1. They are more connected with general mysticism than Christianity2. Jesus is mentioned very little along with salvation 3. The bible seems very unimportant to them4. To me they seem to chase experience more than truth5. They seem to look more to their own soul and calling that God.ryan is describing classical mysticism. Mysticism belongs to the realm of the salvation of self.Ministry before the Lord is never self-imposed, self-exalting or a means of salvation.Mysticism opens a door to the realm of spiritual vanity and deception.Ministry before the Lord leads to maturity and veracity.Mysticism holds no benefits.Ministry unto the Lord serves every level of reality and is therefore costly and it includes a price for anyone who dare to engage in the struggle.I agree with this paragraph so completely that I can’t see how we ever got into this exchange. :-?

Dear Ron,We ran into this argument simply because you underlined both once and twice that there is no cost involved on man's side when it comes to fellowship with God. Prayer is painful, a wearisome work at times. The revivalists can tell.I am quite happy ending the argument here, and to switch to a "Dear Ron". Lars

Christianity is "mystical" in its essence and is not something that can be figured out per-ce, the deepest truths of Christian religion is given by "revelation" from above.GregChristianity is not mystical it is spiritual, and the two words do not mean the same thing. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1Co 2:10-12 KJV)Those who have received the Spirit of God are spiritual, the others are not even though they may pretend to be. Mysticism produces Jakes. Remember him? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20 KJV)We are the ones that label people Christian "mystics" truly people like guyon, fenelon, etc were children of God. I guess I shall get into even more trouble with this statement. A Christian can be a Roman Catholic, but you can't be a 'good Christian' and a 'good Catholic' at the same time. Why? Because official Catholic dogma insists that you believe in Transubstantiation, and the Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception, and the re-offering of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass. I have met some fine Christians who were Catholic, but they were never 'good' Catholics. They came to Christ for forgiveness of sins and not the priest. That made them 'good Christians' but 'bad Catholics'. In the same sense you can have Christians who are mystics, but you can't have people who are 'good Christians' and 'good mystics' at the same time. Because the patterns of each are counter to the other. Sure we can 'get along'. All we have to do is be silent when error is abroad.

From my persective and how I would see and use the word mystical in modern western usuage would pertain to anything mostly supernatural. Religion is expected to be rational and explainable in an age of science and human ingenduity. I think then rather to throw out the word mystical and replace it with spiritual, I would rather say there are gunuine mystical experiences which are according to the spirit of truth that comes from the God we serve.Here’s simple exercise. Go to amazon.com, find the book section and type in ‘mysticism’ in the search box. See what you get. Would you want a young Christian to be let loose into this area? Just look at the first 25 of 28699! What a junkyard of occult! In Christian circles we can readily replace the concept with ‘spiritual’ although in the outside world ‘spiritual’ has come to mean something very close to mystic. Let us maybe consider some examples of Saints from the past. John Bunyan had many spiritual experiences which many would call "mystical" dreams and revelations. I have dreams and revelations but I will not call them mystic. Dreams and revelations are authentic proofs of the arrival of the Spirit according to Peter’s quotation from Joel. Duncan Campbell recieved a vision of hell and was never the same again, wouldnt this be considered an extreme spiritual experience even mystical? No it is not mystic, it is spiritual.The essence of the mystic is passivity. It is the opening of the mind to whatever is passing. It is bringing everything to a passive stillness and waiting to see what pops into the mind. Its purpose is to facilitate union with the divine. It accepts no authority other than its own self-authenticating experience. I have tremendous problems with Jesse Penn-Lewis and War on the Saints but this I agree with whole heartedly ‘God has never said to any of our human faculties “be thou idle”’. Choice is the guardian of the soul. Nothing enters without express permission and invitation. Christ will not enter unless a man ‘hears his voice and opens the door’. The mystic opens the door before he hears any voice and passively receives.The mystic believes that suffering brings purification and so he seeks it. In fact, he seeks it to the extent of self-harm in extreme circumstances. He has no interest in external authorities; no holy script has authority over his experience. The experience authenticates the process and is its own proof.Christian meditation is quite different. It is the conscious waiting on the soul on God in the consciousness of His presence. Every “ransomed power” is on the stretch Godwards. All for Jesus, all for Jesus!All my being’s ransomed powers:All my thoughts and words and doings,All my days and all my hours.This is not passivity but strenuous given-ness. The KJV sometimes uses the word ‘yield’ Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Rom 6:16 KJV) but ‘yield’ is a poor translation. It would be better to have been consistent and translate the word as it is translated later; I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Rom 12:1 KJV) The word means to proffer.The whole difference between mysticism and Christian meditation and waiting upon God is in the two words. To ‘yield’ is to give up passively, to ‘present’ is to offer up, actively. The first is the aim of transcendental meditation which is common to all religions with a mystic element. I drift into absorption with the divine… such drifting will more likely take the drifter into the demonic. As regards other elements of the Christian pilgrimage. I am no stranger to pain and sorrow. I have known such in long, drawn out, trials and in the intense pangs of grief. I never think of these as ‘costs’ For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; Phi 1:29 KJV) They are given; they are gifts. I don’t seek these but as they are given I seek to embrace them actively rather than sinking down into the passive acceptance of the Stoic.The danger always is passivity. I recall looking into the tranquil faces of young Tibetan monks in Northern India. They are the very models of serenity which they attribute to their meditation practice. I recall looking into their faces and hearing in my heart the verse; When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: (Luk 11:21 KJV) This was the Lord’s explanation of demon possession if we read it in its context.My musical tastes are very wide. I can enjoy almost anything, but I will not let the music ‘take me’. The word of the Lord is always ‘choose’. I’m not sure what you refer to in your comment on my attitudes to music, but I will not let so-called Christian music ‘take me’ either. I use music; I will not allow music to use me. I use my mind; I will not allow my mind to use me. These are good servants but dangerous masters.I’m not going to post any more on this topic but I will try to explain why I feel so strongly. I see rows of pretty bottles with folks saying can’t we just appreciate some good things about these bottles? With all my strength I must cry poison! I can do no other. If I have startled you, I’m sorry, genuinely sorry, but if I can keep one dabbler away from those bottles I’m willing to take the flack.

Beloved, We get an opportunity to put into practice the new word we learned: philostorgos. Let us be kindly affectioned towards one another.Christianity is not mystical it is spiritual, and the two words do not mean the same thing. I am reading through these posts and many thoughts are coming to mind. First, there are some strong views on both sides and for good reason; this is when things can get very ugly. Second, I think that the use of the term mystic has caused the most problem. I have observed in the past that the enemy would like us to shun genuinely spiritual things and take up mystical things as a substitute. I have felt this for some time. I have personally, in years past, tried to be mystical to become spiritual. I have been to prayer meeting's that were done by candle light and sometimes in total darkness. I thought that if I would get the mood right with worship music and the lighting right- somehow God would 'show up.' This was being mystical to try to get spiritual. The bells and whistles went off for me in 1993 when I was heading to New Orleans to attend a Benny Hinn crusade on a train 24 hours each way. I met a woman who was a Catholic, Charismatic, New Ager. The crusades had a sort of 'mystical feel' to them and those type of people went to the meetings for an spiritual experience. I later saw Benny Hinn on his show with a man that was telling him that he went through a 'door' in prayer. As a Pentecostal, that disturbed me greatly. I have studied in depth the New Age movement and Gnosticism. I knew it sounded like a spin off of Eastern Religion. And while were here we may as well deal with the "latent power of the soul" thing. The Kempo 'Master' I studied under while backslidden in the late 80's called it "KI" (as in AiKIdo). These people meditate and meditate and meditate until they can perform unnatural things. It is VERY DANGEROUS. You are opening up to demon spirits and all sorts of stuff doing that. I HAD to make a distinction between what is Spiritual and mystical. I have to live a life powered by the Holy Ghost alone. No weird stuff while listening to mellowing music or trying to gain an experience. I have long since cut BH off of my list of ministers I listen to. These guys have quoted Tozer and all sorts of Mystics, both "Christian" and New Age. You can (at least used to) even find Dino' K's piano music in New Age stores! I found the stuff there when I was researching it in 1994. The New Agers found it conducive to their end. Brethren, I propose one solution- lets all just get and stay FULL of the Holy Ghost.God Bless,-Robert