Hodge and Tozer against Mysticism1
As an evangelical Christian, Dr. Charles Hodge (1797–1878) embraced “a supernatural influence of the Spirit of God upon the soul, and . . . a higher form of knowledge, holiness, and fellowship with God, as the effects of that influence.” He admits that such believers have been “stigmatized as Mystics” (I.63), likely by Rationalists. Hodge was opposing Mysticism as more commonly understood to exalt intuition over Scripture as the source of knowledge about God. And A. W. Tozer (1897–1963) agreed in his own inimitable way. Their warnings seem just as relevant today.
————– Charles Hodge ————–
Mysticism begins with ideas that are scriptural and true—that God can communicate truth directly to the human soul, and that it can be known with certainty by the receiver. But such instances of supernatural revelation are miraculous, rare, and duly authenticated.
The Church has recognized such revelations are now preserved in Scripture, and this written Word is authoritative and sufficient for us (Heb 1.1, 2; 2.3, 4; 2 Tim 3.16, 17). Romanists deny sufficiency by insisting that we need its supposedly infallible teachers. Mystics deny sufficiency by teaching that the Spirit within each person is the highest rule of faith, able to save and sanctify even without the Scriptures. Objections to these two theories are basically the same.
1. Mysticism has no foundation in the Scriptures
It promises neither infallible bishops nor the Spirit as the immediate revealer of truth to every person. Such gifts were restricted mainly to OT prophets and NT apostles. The NT “gift of prophecy” was analogous to the “gift of miracles;” both have obviously ceased.
Various Scripture texts are abused in support of mysticism (e.g., John 16.13; 1 Cor 2.14; 1 John 2.20, 27), as a sounder interpretation consistent with other biblical passages easily demonstrates.
So then, lacking any foundation in Scripture, mysticism is not credible.
2. Mysticism is contrary to the Scriptures
It stands opposed, not only to individual texts, but to the whole revealed plan of how God deals with His people. The authenticated Word is authoritative (Isa 8.20; Mark 16.15; Rom 1.16; 10.14; 1 Cor 1.21). Never do we find the
Apostles calling upon their hearers to look within themselves for an “inner Word,” but rather to hear and believe the “outward Word.”
3. Contrary to the facts of experience
Without access to Scripture people always continue in their sins. Knowing God and worshiping Him aright is impossible without the Scriptures, which are the indispensable source of saving truth.
We do not deny that the Spirit is at work in everyone to one degree or another, even those without the Word. He restrains sinners from all the evil they might do; this has been called “common grace.” But this in no way establishes or supports the basic idea of mysticism.
4. No criterion by which to judge of the source of inward suggestions
How could one possibly know, apart from Scripture, what inward impulses or revelations were from the Holy Spirit or from Satan? We believe in the inner “testimony of the Spirit” which belongs to Christians, and that the prophets and Apostles received infallible truth in their minds by the Spirit, but this had both internal and external evidence of its divine authority (John 10.37, 38). We cannot “just know” by intuition; we are easily deceived without Scripture (Prov 14.12).
The doctrine productive of evil
5. Christ teaches us to discern good from evil men “by their fruits” (Matt 7.16). This also applies to doctrines. History illustrates mysticism has undermined the divine institutions of the church, the ministry, the ordinances, the Sabbath, and the Scriptures. It has also generally led to the greatest excesses and social evils—the Quakers perhaps an exception, for they exalt “inner light” over Scripture (Barclay’s Second Proposition) on the one hand, and yet make inexplicable concessions to Scripture’s authority, which seem to have preserved them to some degree from the more typical excesses of other Mystics. But even the Quakers have neglected in some degree the Scriptures and the ordinances of the Church.
————– A. W. Tozer ————–
Some of my friends good-humoredly—and some a little bit severely—have called me a “mystic.” Well I’d like to say this about any mysticism I may suppose to have. If an archangel from heaven were to come, and were to start giving me, telling me, teaching me, and giving me instruction, I’d ask him for the text. I’d say, “Where’s it say that in the Bible? I want to know.” And I would insist that it was according to the scriptures, because I do not believe in any extra-scriptural teachings, nor any anti-scriptural teachings, or any sub-scriptural teachings. I think we ought to put the emphasis where God puts it, and continue to put it there, and to expound the scriptures, and stay by the scriptures. I wouldn’t—no matter if I saw a light above the light of the sun, I’d keep my mouth shut about it ‘til I’d checked with Daniel and Revelation and the rest of the scriptures to see if it had any basis in truth. And if it didn’t, I’d think I’d just eaten something I shouldn’t, and I wouldn’t say anything about it. Because I don’t believe in anything that is unscriptural or that is anti-scripture.— What Difference Does the Holy Spirit Make?
____________________
1. Charles Hodge was an influential Reformed theologian. This paraphrased summary is taken from his Systematic Theology I.97, q.v
2. Those holding “the system or theory which assigns undue authority to reason in matters of religion” (I.34).