The Evils of Mysticism, Pt 1

Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness.

Mysticism exists in various religions. Mysticism can be found in Hassidic Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Neo-platonism, Sufism, Quakerism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Islam and Mormonism. It was present in all the ancient religions of Asia and the pre-Christian religions of Europe. In non-religious secular societies, mysticism appears as New Age belief.

I wish to contend that mysticism is a unifying factor in all false religion. Mysticism is a rejection of an external revelation from God and a substituting in its place of an internal experience. It is a replacing of “Thus saith the Lord,” with “I feel.” This is no exaggeration. Many mystics openly avow such teaching, claiming that reason is not the organ of truth and that it is through feelings that God make truth known.

Over the next couple of days we will be examining mysticism in more detail, showing why it is contrary to Scripture. It is pantheistic at heart and thus contrary to Christianity.

How God Uses Adversity

God sent a man before them - Joseph, sold as a slave. They bruised his feet with shackles, his neck was put in irons, till what he foretold came to pass, till the word of the LORD proved him true. The king sent and released him, the ruler of peoples set him free. He made him master of his household, ruler over all he possessed, to instruct his princes as he pleased and teach his elders wisdom. Psalm 105:17-22

By adversity we mean disappointments, trials and all manner of unfortunate events hat happen in opposition to our desires.

This narrative furnishes us with a striking illustration of the mysterious way in which Providence accomplishes its designs by an intertwined series of second causes, which includes (1) circumstances that seem fortuitous, and the (2) volitions of rational agents who mean nothing less than that issue which they contribute unconsciously to effect and secure.

Think about the chain of events in Joseph’s life that was overruled by God.

Had Joseph not told his dreams to his brothers –

Had his father not sent him to Dothan –

Had the Ishmaelites not passed by when he was in the pit –

Had he not been sold to Potiphar –

Had Potiphar’s wife been a better woman, or Potiphar a worse man –

Had he been thrown into any other than the king’s prison -

Had the officers of Pharaoh not incurred his displeasure –

Joseph’s advancement would not have taken place. The brilliant deliverance of many people from the 7-year famine would never have happened. Israel would not have been provided a settlement for Israel in Egypt. The long train of grand results, including blessing of all nations in all generations (which all depended upon this) would have been derailed and unsuccessful.

When God determines to use someone in advancing His glory and promoting the good of His church and mankind, He usually prepares by causing them to pass through scenes of severe affliction.

Moses is another example. He lived at the court of Pharaoh. He was initiated into the wisdom of the Egyptians, and the practice of the arts of war and peace. These were all intended by God to be subservient to the execution of His higher plans. But neither these, nor his piety, nor the patriotism and generous indignation against tyranny which burned in his breast, could exempt him from passing through another education of a rougher kind. It was by these that he was freed from the impurities which he had contracted, and thus became qualified for his different task. He needed to be an exile in Midian for as many years as he had been a courtier in Egypt and was to be Israel’s leader.

But returning to our text, we think of Joseph. In addition to his amiable disposition, Joseph inherited the piety of his forefathers. But neither his high aspirations, nor his benevolent character, nor his early piety, nor the education which he had received under the eye of a father also trained in the school of adversity, could suffice to form the Joseph’s character.

The purposes adversity serves in the lives of God’s people.

• Adversity is a school for acquiring practical wisdom. Adversity has a tendency to sober the mind, disperse the illusions prosperity has created and induces thoughtfulness and meditation. Practical wisdom contains two things: knowledge of ourselves, and knowledge of others. Adversity gives us both.

• Adversity helps us in subduing and regulating our passions. The person who is not emancipated from the slavery of his passions cannot be truly great or truly good.

• Adversity serves to improve the nobler qualities in the mind. For a person to be fit for great deeds he must possess the hardy virtues of patience and dependability. He must also have a disinterested devotion to the public and an independence of mind that raises him above the mastery of external circumstances. It’s not until one has passed through a series of sharp disappointments and humiliating setbacks that he can attain pure and disinterested benevolence.

• Sanctified adversity produces strong confidence in God. Joseph’s filial fear of God steadily grew, under trial, into an unshakable confidence in the help of the Almighty.

This subject shows us some important truths:

• One way in which God authenticates the call of His chosen ministers. There is a course of preparation which persons must go through to fit them for the work for which they are destined. This course is practical as well as didactic.

• One reason why there are few great men in our time – there have been few great trials. We have men of great talents, but few of great character.

• Has God exempted you from afflictions? Sympathize with those who suffer.

Where Have All the Preachers Gone?

The unfolding of Your word gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. Psalm 119:130 (NASB)

“The end of all preaching is to bring men under the influence of God’s Word; and nothing seems so likely to make men understand the Word as lectures in which the Word is explained. It was so in Chrysostom’s days; it ought to be so again. The idea, no doubt, like every good theory, may be easily ridden to death; and I believe that with ignorant, semi-heathen congregations, a short pithy text often does more good than a long passage expounded. But I have no doubt of the immense value of expository preaching, when people will bring their Bibles to the service, and accompany the preacher as he travels on, or go home to their Bibles after the service, and compare what they have heard with the written Word.” Excerpt from J.C. Ryle’s “Estimate of Manton” in volume 1 of the works of Thomas Manton

Expository preaching is superior to all other homiletic methods. We take as our theme this passage from Psalm 119:130 because expository preaching is nothing other that “unfolding” God’s Word, and we are told here that it is this which gives light and understanding.

The Hebrew word rendered “unfolding” in the NASB is the word pethach, which means “opening” in a figurative sense. This is why other versions render the word as “entrance.” This is an acceptable rendering so long as we keep in mind that it is meant in a figurative sense that implies disclosure rather than a door. Other forms of the word’s root, pathach, mean to open wide (literal or figurative); specifically to loosen, begin, plough, carve: - appear, break forth, draw (out), let go free, (en-) grave (-n), loose (self), (be, be set) open (-ing), put off, ungird, unstop, have vent. And so we can clearly see the point being made by the Psalmist. It is only by opening, unfolding and drawing out the meaning of God’s Word that there can be light and understanding.

There are other passages of Scripture that confirm this view. In Luke 24:27, 31, it was Jesus’ expounding of the Scriptures that opened the eyes of the disciples’ understanding. Acts 17:3 has Paul opening the Scriptures and it was this opening which brought many of his listeners to saving faith. Nehemiah 8:8 says, “They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.”

Expository preaching takes the actual words of Scripture and sets about to explain them from their context and how all of Scripture teaches the same things. The Puritans were truly models for great preaching. If you have ever read a Puritan sermon, you’ll know what I mean. If you haven’t, you should!

The Puritan model is best seen in the sermons of Thomas Manton and John Flavel. First the text is read. Next, some details of the context and background are given. The text then is broken up into its various clauses and phrases, with all the ramifications explained. This leads to the statement of the passage’s “Doctrine,” i.e., the theological truth which the passage teaches. The body of the sermon is spent expounding this doctrine through references to many other parts of Scripture. The Puritans, like the Reformers before them, believed in the principle that Scripture interprets itself (Scriptura Intrapratatum). This is why they always interpreted a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible. They never came upon a verse and thought, “Wow! This is a new doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible." If you think that a passage is teaching a doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible, you've misinterpreted it.

Finally, the Puritan sermon ALWAYS ended with practical applications of the doctrinal truths learned. Puritan sermons were almost always split right down the middle: about half being doctrinal and the other half being practical application.

This is truly the biblical model. Paul’s epistles have this same quality. About midway through you will find a “therefore” that begins a section of applying the doctrinal truths expounded on in the first part of the letter. There is no superior method of preaching.

Appended are three principles that are a great guide in biblical interpretation. I found these in my notes. I didn’t formulate them. If anyone recognizes them and knows the source, let me know. I want to give credit where it is due.

3 Principles of Interpretation

• We must aim to allow the Scriptures, in whole and in each of their parts, to function as God intends.
• The function or meaning of any individual passage of Scripture should first be sought by attempting to determine what its human author intended in writing it.
• Ultimately, our interpretation of any particular biblical passage must acknowledge and take into account the fundamental unity and consistency of God’s whole written word.

My Favorite Forms of Argumentation

One of my favorite features in apologetics is where a view is demonstrated to be false by virtue of its own principles. This is sometimes called a self-stultifying or self-defeating position.

An example would be Bill Clinton’s notorious remark that belief in absolutes is wrong. For that statement to be true, it would have to be absolute. So, in order in order for it to be true it would have to be false!

Another example is the contention of many existentialists that nothing has meaning. I imagine that they assume that that statement is a meaningful statement about reality. But if that statement were true it would be false.

Yet another example is the central monistic assumption of pantheism. Pantheism believes that everything is God and God is everything. The sum total of all that exists is God. Now, if this were strictly true, a pantheist would affirm, “God exists and I don’t,” because “I,” like everything else in existence, am merely a mode of God’s existence. But to say that you don’t exist is self-stultifying. If you don’t exist, you can neither affirm nor deny anything.

Another feature of apologetics that has always impressed me is when it is show that one position is rejected based on supposed ramifications which are actually truer of the opposing view.

For example, people often accuse the Calvinist doctrine of Divine sovereignty of being fate. This is an old accusation. During the semi-Pelagian debates of the 5th Century, Faustus of Riez wrote, “In the name of grace Augustine preaches fatalism.” However, if one thinks this through carefully, the Arminian view is more fatalistic. If the Arminian view of Divine foreknowledge is true then God’s knowledge is not based upon His decree but rather upon the free-will of the creature. So when something bad happens to man, God can only say, “You poor thing. You must simply grin and bear the bad fortune that has come upon you. I could do nothing about it. I had to consent to these contingencies that come, whether I will them or not.” Is this not more fatalistic? In the words of Christopher Ness, “What else is this but to overthrow all those graces of Faith, Hope, etc., to cast off all vital godliness; and to pull the great Jehovah Himself out of His throne of glory, setting up Dame Fortune to be worshipped in His stead?”

Another example is the accusation that Open Theists make that “traditional Christianity” was corrupted by Greek philosophy. Yet the roots of the Open Theism’s ideas regarding God’s foreknowledge are easily traceable to Calcidius a 5th Century philosopher and interpreter of Plato.

For some reason, these kind of logical and internal inconsistencies simultaneously intrigue me and irritate me. There are many forms of argumentation in apologetics and polemics, but these are my favorites.

A Look at Psalm 91:1, Pt 3

We now come to some practical application of the doctrinal truths we looked at from this wonderful verse: He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. - Psalm 91:1

If we learned nothing else from this verse, we should have learned that all who entrust themselves into God’s hands can remain secure under His protection in the midst of all dangers.

This being true, what does this imply by way of application?

First and foremost, it is a correction and rebuke for all who trust in anything besides God. The simple fact is that many trust in created things against God. Nothing could be more foolish. Some trust in created things without God. Again, very foolish. But equally foolish and equally sinful is to trust in created things in conjunction with God. Our hearts are all so naturally idolatrous and image oriented that we would rather trust in something we can see with our physical eyes and feel with our hands. Yet God is invisible. This does not mean that we deny His existence, but that like idolatrous Israel, we want to worship Him through things we can see and touch. That is why it seems so hard to calmly trust God when things are not doing smoothly (by our definition).

Secondly, for those of us who do trust God, we are encouraged to do so with whole-heartedness. One thinks of the Disciples’ faith after a night of great disappointment. In faith they say to Christ, “We have toiled all night, nevertheless at Your word…” (Luke 5:5).

Trust is displayed also by the waiting of faith when success is delayed. Only greed and impatience must have instant gratification.

One thinks as well of Job and His resolution of faith. He says, “Though He slay me…” (Job 13:15). I don’t think Job thought God would kill him. The point is simply that Job was humbly submissive to God’s sovereignty and would trust in Him even if He slew him. Daniel’s friends exhibited the same trust when they told the king that they would not bow to his image even if God did not save them (Daniel 3:16 - 18).

Trust submits to God gladly. It lets God order things as He pleases (Mat. 6:33).

If it be foolish to trust the creature against, without or together with God, then there must certainly be great wisdom in trust. Settle your mind as to present needs, and let God worry about the future. Jesus told us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.” He did not say, “Give us now our bread for the next 35 years.” We live most safely and securely when we let go of the reigns and entrust ourselves wholly to God’s care.