01/12/06
On r-f-w list
recently there was insightful discussion concerning mysticism that I think is
worth reference at this site. Here were
some of the comments posted in the discussion:
Quoting
jparnellm@usxchange.net:
> Yes, it is
excellent. Would it not be correct to
say that false religion
> inevitably
descends into some form of irrationality because it is marked by
> the
> suppression
of truth in unrighteousness? False
worldviews are plagued by
> such
>
contradictions, whereas truth contains none.
>
> example : the
contradictions inherent in the Romish doctrine of
>
transubstantiation concerning their Mass
>
>
> - Parnell
McCarter
> Seek member
in FPCS
> Attender, ARC
of GR
> GR, MI
>
> Quoting
Matthew Vogan <mavogan@yahoo.co.uk>:
>
> > This is
an excellent article IMO - I mean the one that follows by Mr
> Winzer.
> > Matthew
Ø
>
> > Matthew
Winzer <mwinzer@pap.com.au> wrote:
> > The less this erroneous article is
passed around, the better for
> > the
kingdom of Christ. I was permitted to
contributed an article to Credo
> >
Quarterly called "the Puritans and Experience," which shows the
difference
> > between
Puritan experimentalism and medieval mysticism. An extract
> follows:
> >
> > Begin quote.
> > 1. The nature of spiritual experience:
> >
> > Covenantal.
> >
> > The idea of an immediate, spiritual
experience is reminiscent of the
> > mystics.
They, too, had reacted to the medieval tendency to reduce
> religion
> > to forms
and mediums. Puritanism, however, differed from mysticism in its
> >
fundamental conception as to the manner in which spiritual things are
> >
experienced.
> > For the mystics, the experience of the Holy
is primarily transcendental.
> > Man must
ascend beyond the conceptions and images of one’s self in order
> to
> > see God
in a "cloud of unknowing," to borrow the title of a well known
> work
> > by an unknown
author. This is generally described as a process which makes
> > use of
devotional practices, the practice of the presence of God; but the
> > ideal is
to be constantly reaching higher until self is either lost in or
> > given
over to the Divine. In the present day this would be expressed in
> the
> > words
"let go and let God." Either anti- or supra-rationality is the mode
> of
> > the
experience, while passivity is its mood.
> > Anyone who has read even the smallest
portion of Puritan experimental
> > divinity
will be unable to equate their writings with what is described
> > above.
That is because the Puritan experience of the things of God was
> always
> > viewed
as covenantal. To quote the Westminster Confession of Faith:
> > The distance between God and the
creature is so great, that ...
> >
reasonable creatures ... could never have any fruition of him as their
> >
blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part,
> > which he
hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> > In Puritan experience God must descend. Man
cannot ascend because the
> >
ontological distance (the difference in being) is infinite and cannot be
> >
traversed by any means on finite man’s part. The Creator must graciously
> > initiate
any relationship which the creature is to have with Him; and as
> the
> >
initiator, He defines the nature and conditions of the relationship to be
> >
established.
> > The exclusive nature of the covenant for
man’s experience of God is
> > declared
with great conviction by Dr. John Owen:
> > Without this a man could have no
foundation for any intercourse or
> >
communion with God, or of any expectation from him, nor any direction how
> to
> > deal
with him in any of his concernments. Great and signal, then, was the
> >
condescension of God, to take his poor creature into covenant with
>
himself."
> > For the Puritans, then, the condescension
of God, expressed by way of
> >
covenant, defines the conditions under which both parties, God and man,
> are
> > to be in
relationship; and so whatever experience man has of God – whether
> of
> > God
acting for or upon man, or of man acting for or towards God – it is in
> > the
terms which the Lord of the covenant has prescribed. There can be no
> > fruition
of God outside of this.
> >
> > Rational.
> >
> > The reason why the Almighty chose this
manner of dealing with man is due
> to
> > the fact
that man is a reasonable creature. This is indicated by John
> Ball,
> > one whom
the later Puritans perhaps most esteemed as an expounder of
> covenant
> >
theology:
> > First that the creature might know what
to expect from the Creator,
> > into
what state soever cast. Secondly, that the same creature might always
> >
recognize, and acknowledge what to retribute. Thirdly, Such manner of
> dealing
> > suites
best withe the nature of the reasonable creature, and his
> >
subordination to the Almighty.
> > Words such as know, recognise, and
acknowledge are noteworthy in
> comparison
> > to the
mystical ideal. Man’s experience of God’s blessedness is in terms of
> a
> > covenant
because this best suits his reasonable nature; and consequently,
> >
everything experienced under the covenant relation admits of a rational
> >
explanation.
> > Upon this ground the Puritans unanimously
made a claim for the use of
> > reason
which might possibly startle a post-modern era like ours. "The
> unique
> >
character of these [intelligent] creatures makes the difference,"
> according
> > to
William Ames.
> > Since they are created after the image
of God, are in some way
> >
immortal, and decide their actions in accord with their own counsel, they
> are
> > to be
directed towards an eternal state of happiness or unhappiness in
> >
accordance with their own counsel and freedom.
> > Thomas Manton speaks to the same effect on
behalf of the younger
> generation
> > of
divines:
> > There are some truths above reason, but
none contrary to it; for
> grace
> > is not
contrary to nature, but perfects it; therefore there is nothing in
> the
> > gospel
but what is agreeable to sound reason."
> > Quite to the contrary of that which the
mystics claimed, there can be no
> >
experience of the blessedness of God which does not involve the consent of
> > the
rational faculty.
> >
> > Active.
> >
> > If it be asked, why was man blessed with
reason? the answer is ably
> > provided
by Thomas Goodwin:
> > Man, you all know, is a reasonable creature; and as he himself
was
> >
principally ordained for action, so to help him therein reason was
> >
principally given him to guide and steer him.
> > Reason is given to lead man as he
endeavours to fulfil his principal
> > purpose,
or chief end, namely, action; more specifically, the type of
> action
> > as is
described in the first answer in a number of Puritan catechisms: "to
> > glorify
God." Here, again, is something entirely distinct from the
> mystical
> > notion
which tended to emphasis contemplation of, and passive union in,
> the
> > beatific
vision. There is not a hint in Puritan praxis that one must let
> go
> > or lose
one’s self. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. At every
> point
> > of practical
divinity the Puritans stress the full use of man’s faculties.
> > The
mind, the will, the affections, the conscience, all are to be engaged.
> > Man’s
soul is not only reasonable, it is living and active as well.
> >
Therefore, the whole man – guided along by reason, set to work by the
> will,
> > moved to
action and carried along by the affections, confirmed by the
> >
testimony of a good conscience – is to be employed, holistically, in
> >
communion with, and service to, God.
> > "The whole conversation of a
Christian," declares Richard Sibbes, "is
> > nothing
else but knowledge digested into will, affection, and practice."
> > It is at this point that the concept of the
covenant becomes all
> important
> > in
Puritan divinity. Man as "ordained for action" requires guidance, and
> > covenant
theology provides a Biblical framework within which to
> systematise
> > that
guidance, to distinguish what properly belongs to God’s sovereignty
> and
> > what to
man’s responsibility. Samuel Rutherford points out in his unique
> work
> > on the
covenant of grace, that
> > it is of much concernment, to make out
the Union of our Duty and the
> >
breathings of the Lord, and what can be done under deadness, to either
> fetch
> > the
wind, or to be put in a spiritual condition, that the soul may ly fair
> > for the
receiving of the influences of God.
> > For Rutherford and his associates, the
covenant was a fortress which
> served
> > to
resist the onslaughts of Antinomian and Arminian unorthodoxy alike.
> > Against
Antinomians, covenantal theology demonstrated that the duty of man
> > was as
essential to blessedness as the breathings of the Lord; against
> >
Arminians, that the breathings of the Lord were essential if man was going
> to
> > fulfil
his duty and be blessed of God.
> > The fortress of covenant theology was as
much a shelter for the troubled
> >
conscience as a defence against the troublers of Israel. This is seen most
> > vividly
in the work of another Scottish divine, David Dickson. His
> >
Therapeutica Sacra attempts to briefly show "the method of healing the
> > diseases
of the conscience concerning regeneration." The fact that its
> > brevity
runs to 532 pages is indicative that the healing of the conscience
> is
> > a vast
topic in Puritan practical divinity. A large section of the book is
> >
concerned with providing a correct explanation of the covenants; and the
> > reason
is "because the healing of the sickness of the conscience cometh by
> a
> > right application
of the covenants about our salvation."
> >
> > Endquote.
> >
> > I apologise that the footnotes could not be
copied.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Rev.
Matthew Winzer
> > AFC, Burnie, Tasmania
> >