Mysticism or Faith & Reason

[Pophead]

This is a most fascinating subject and I hope that everyone gets in here and has a great time exploring it.

First up are two articles that you will have to read. Don’t worry they are not that long, but they are very meaty. Obviously, they don’t explore the entire scope of either Mysticism or Faith & Reason, plus the variations or harmony that can exist between them is also a consideration. It is just that both present strong views and that will definitely help us to remember the scores of other things we have read, thereby I hope prompting some really lively debate or discussion.

I do realize that one can separate Faith from Reason, and Mysticism and even have either or, etc. I did consider a vote, but there will be too many variations and to be honest I think before the end of this thread there are going to be so many people chopping and changing their views; so I guess voting will be pointless.

It would however be great if you could read the two articles, instead of immediately beginning to grant us with your pearls of wisdom. (I know that BB. Warfield’s ideas are distinctly Protestant, but he was still a great thinker and this article has great merit. Well I think it does.)

The two passages of Scripture that I have added afterwards may or may not be helpful in the development of this thread, but that will depend entirely upon your responses to the two articles, and then your own ideas combined with your religious beliefs are going to make this thread very exciting.

Please read these two articles carefully:

BB Warfield – Mysticism or Christianity

Faith and Reason by Keith Allen Korcz

If you have chosen not to read the articles and have decided just plough right on in, at least give the passages of Scripture a read and think! Use your own Bibles please as this is from the KJ Bible … all these details!

Scripture #1
Matthew 12:38-40

Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Scripture #2
John 20:24-31

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Okay.
So what are your thoughts? – If you are puzzled, just read through my introduction again and come on in. Being that there is enough here and if you know my threads already, you won’t need to buzz me.

This will be my last thread until I get to England, so hey, gimme something kewl to read while I am up there in the silver bird.

Peace,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

Additional:
After discussing this thread with a friend, who was very interested to explore it, I realized that I had forgotten a very important third passage of Scripture, so add this to the two articles above and the two passages.

Scripture #3:
Luke 16:22-31

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him,** If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.**

Love,
Pophead.

 

[Contarini]

OK, as far as I can see Warfield argues the following:

1. Mysticism is “natural religion”
2. Natural religion is insufficient for sinful human beings, and must be “supplemented” by Christianity
3. Christianity does not supersede natural religion (aka mysticism), but “takes it up” into itself

How then does Warfield–and how do you–get to the conclusion that mysticism is incompatible with Christianity. It would follow from the above that mysticism is fully compatible with Christianity. Warfield seems to think that Christian mysticism constitutes a “return” to pure natural religion. And of course some forms he has in mind may do that. But that’s not what I know as Christian mysticism.

Furthermore, Warfield’s criticism that mysticism relies on “natural” feelings instead of propositional revelation assumes that reason is somehow not “natural” in the same way–that words can encompass the reality of God where feelings can’t. How does Warfield defend this assumption? Does he even bother, or does his common-sense realism simply make this astounding presumption seem obvious?

Edwin

 

[inthecloud]

As a fan of mysticism, I had to add to Edwin post that Warfield seems to be highly critical of protestant mysticism like the Quakers “inner light” and the Shakers and todays Pentecostals “Spirit filled”. Other that mentioning Pseduo Dionusious, Dunns Scottus and Meister Eckart he seems to by pass Catholic mysticism. No John of the Cross or Teresa de Avila for example. Yes the mystics seen to take personal experience of God as vital but they know specially on the Catholic side that that experience should not be in conflic with church tradition and Scripture. For example, St Julianna of Norwich had like many mystics a difficult time understanding why the all loving God they experienced intimately would condemm people to Hell. Yet she never challenged church teaching on Hell like Origin. I think mysticism have a place in Christianity. In fact is the deepest relationship one could have with God, one that cannot be put into words, but poetry usually come a little bit close. But mysticism demand a certain church discipline and discernement. Is not for everyone.

 

[Pophead]

OK, as far as I can see Warfield argues the following:

1. Mysticism is “natural religion”
2. Natural religion is insufficient for sinful human beings, and must be “supplemented” by Christianity
3. Christianity does not supersede natural religion (aka mysticism), but “takes it up” into itself

How then does Warfield–and how do you–get to the conclusion that mysticism is incompatible with Christianity. It would follow from the above that mysticism is fully compatible with Christianity. Warfield seems to think that Christian mysticism constitutes a “return” to pure natural religion. And of course some forms he has in mind may do that. But that’s not what I know as Christian mysticism.

Furthermore, Warfield’s criticism that mysticism relies on “natural” feelings instead of propositional revelation assumes that reason is somehow not “natural” in the same way–that words can encompass the reality of God where feelings can’t. How does Warfield defend this assumption? Does he even bother, or does his common-sense realism simply make this astounding presumption seem obvious?

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

Thanks first of all for reading BB Warfields article.

You asked:
How then does Warfield–and how do you–get to the conclusion that mysticism is incompatible with Christianity.

I say:

BB Warflied does, and that is the point of the first article. I think my own beliefs are a lot simpler than most ‘dogmatic scripturalists’. They tend to hate me, because I say stuff like, ‘I love talking to God in the moring, and He talks right back.’

I hope you make more sense of the second article than I did. He had some great opening quotes.

The three passages of Scripture will probably prove to be more exciting. You have a great command of the subject and I look forward to more of your insightful comments.

Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

As a fan of mysticism, I had to add to Edwin post that Warfield seems to be highly critical of protestant mysticism like the Quakers “inner light” and the Shakers and todays Pentecostals “Spirit filled”.

Yes, I agree.

Other that mentioning Pseduo Dionusious, Dunns Scottus and Meister Eckart he seems to by pass Catholic mysticism. No John of the Cross or Teresa de Avila for example.

I have enjoyed reading some of Meister Ekhardt and a few others. I forget the names.

Yes the mystics seen to take personal experience of God as vital but they know specially on the Catholic side that that experience should not be in conflic with church tradition and Scripture.

Surely too if one spends enough time with God, one soon gets to know the voice of the Great Shepherd. I expect a smack on the cheek for that.

For example, St Julianna of Norwich had like many mystics a difficult time understanding why the all loving God they experienced intimately would condemm people to Hell.

Yes, I have her book. It seems we share a similar ache. I am currently writing on that topic, and will be moving to Norwich in 2008. How about that?

Yet she never challenged church teaching on Hell like Origin.

Do you have a direct route to what Origen taught? I am VERY interested to read it.

I think mysticism have a place in Christianity.

I think ‘mysticism’ is like a ladder. Christianity however is very mystical. ‘Christ in us the hope of glory’

In fact is the deepest relationship one could have with God, one that cannot be put into words, but poetry usually come a little bit close.

You said it.

But mysticism demand a certain church discipline and discernement.

Unfortunately, very often this type of lifestyle is only supported by the monastic lifestyle, unless you just happen to be a recluse. Or a cave dweller in Tibet, or the pathways of Tibet, like Sadhu Sundar Singh was. He has always fascinated me, more even than Francis of Assissi.

Is not for everyone.

It could be, but not everyone who attends church really wants to go further than what is on the menu. The quite time of devotion can become a time of retreat or a monastic life, the latter which I favour, but without all the garb and rituals and stuff. Just times of quite with our wonderful God.

Now I shall await my spanking.

Love,
Pophead.

 

[Contarini]

Do you have a direct route to what Origen taught? I am VERY interested to read it.

You can find his *On First Principles *and some of his other writings here. Vol. 9 of the same series has some of his commentaries.

Origen didn’t challenge the teaching of the Church, which was not as fixed in his day as it became later.

Or a cave dweller in Tibet, or the pathways of Tibet, like Sadhu Sundar Singh was. He has always fascinated me, more even than Francis of Assissi.

He was indeed fascinating–I’m glad to run into someone else who has heard of him! And incidentally, from what I’ve read I understand that he essentially agreed with Origen about hell.

Edwin

 

[Pophead]

You can find his *On First Principles *and some of his other writings here. Vol. 9 of the same series has some of his commentaries.

Thanks.

Origen didn’t challenge the teaching of the Church, which was not as fixed in his day as it became later.

Oh. Okalidokali.

He was indeed fascinating–I’m glad to run into someone else who has heard of him!

Yes, I cut my baby teeth on Sadhu. I had his seven or so booklets on the cheapest paper one can imagine. I miss them.

And incidentally, from what I’ve read I understand that he essentially agreed with Origen about hell.

Oh. Well, I gotta go fetch my son from the beach. Yes, SSS really did make me sit up and think. Especially his conversion which was incredible.

Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

Additional > opening post:-

I was thinking about ‘Faith & Reason’, the second part of this thread and came across this article by Paul E. Little. I think it explores the misconception that genuine faith is just a ‘blind leap’ -

It’s not that the other article doesn’t, but I think it might help to bring a stronger contrast between ‘Mysticism’, and ‘Faith and Reason’.

Love, Pophead.

Here’s the link friends: BEYOND BLIND FAITH by Paul E. Little



ps. I think I should I should have titled this thread ‘Blind Faith’ or ‘Gentle Faith’ (both 60 - 70’s Rock Bands.) hehehe

 

[inthecloud]

Other thing, mystics are often more rational that people realize. They just realize that relating to GOD there are limits to reason. Modern science ownes a lot to english franciscan mystics for example. The kind of people that wrote the Cloud of Unknowing and the Book of privy council. And produced Roger Bacon and William of Occam. Umberto Eco with the character William de Baskerville in In the Name of the Rose did a homage to them.

 

[inthecloud]

Other thing, mystics are often more rational that people realize. They just realize that relating to GOD there are limits to reason. Modern science ownes a lot to english franciscan mystics for example. The kind of people that wrote the Cloud of Unknowing and the Book of privy council. And produced Roger Bacon and William of Occam. Umberto Eco with the character William de Baskerville in In the Name of the Rose did a homage to them.

 

[inthecloud]

BTW is today St. Teresa de Avila day?

Other thing, mystics are often more rational that people realize. They just realize that relating to GOD there are limits to reason. Modern science ownes a lot to english franciscan mystics for example. The kind of people that wrote the Cloud of Unknowing and the Book of privy council. And produced Roger Bacon and William of Occam. Umberto Eco with the character William de Baskerville in In the Name of the Rose did a homage to them.

 

[Pophead]

Other thing, mystics are often more rational that people realize. They just realize that relating to GOD there are limits to reason.

I think where the most grievious errors are made, are not so much in giving credit to the mystical experience of hearing or seeing God, but in believing that Mysticism is the ultimate step to knowing GOD experientially. Believe it or not, in any age at any time ‘the Gospel’ as it relates specifically to what Jesus Christ has done, is the most sublime ‘rest’ and ‘ongoing revelation’ of the presense of GOD, both personally and to the body of Christ in general.

I often held aloft the Mystics of numerous religions, Christianity included as if by some great divine providence, they were granted better sight and better hearing than the rest, only to discover that a child who recieves the Kingdom of God, have often been granted sight and vision far in excess of this. To which there is then NO credit whatsoever to the habits of seers, sages, monks, saints and what have you, whose hours of prayer and devotion amount to no more than milk treats.

I once explained to a Mormon who was so proud of Joseph Smith, that his revelation of God was not something unique for it was prophecied that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. The gift of God, is not granted on the basis of merit of our own, but exclusively on the merit of the Son of God. It may seem a strange thing to say, but this is not something that has come to me without tremendous agony of heart and anxiety in prayer of many years. It however, is not because of my struggles, but the struggles of Christ on our behalf that anything comes to us from heaven.

John the Baptist made this point crystal clear in John 3:27. Sight or Vision of God, is and will always be a wonderful gift, not granted on the basis of merit. That is the very nature of the gift of eternal life.

Love,
Pophead.

 

[inthecloud]

I add that in fact, the Gospels, especally the Gospel of John is are very mystical indeed. Is like a manual, actually. Most Chirstian mystics are basically following the Gospels (but not whole Bible) most mystics I have read pay special attention to Genesis ( which even in the middle ages the often read in a symbolic way), the ascend to MT Sinai by Moses, Isaias, Elias, the Psalms, Wisdom (not in most protestant Bibles) the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles.
And yes, some mystic commit the mistake to take personal revelations as scripture. As happened in the 19th Century in the US and the UK (Smith, White, McPherson).
But I also think that the real goal of mysticism is to be in perfect union with Jesus at least for a moment like St John of the Cross not getting visions, personal revelations, stigmata or other fireworks.

 

[Greg27]

I think a good religious belief combines a confident and hopeful faith with solid reason and contemplation of God or the Absolute. Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine are excellent representatives of this in the Christian tradition, but I can also think of Plotinus, Plato, Aristotle, Moses Maimonides and a few others in this sort of vein. Mystical theology (where it exists) should be the consumation of what reason and faith seek, in their own respective ways, and also represent the end point of a person’s quest for truth and happiness in fulfilling every desire and bringing peace and serenity to the person’s entire being.