Darkness to Light Home Page

Books and eBooks by the Director

Mysticism Article Discussion

Part One

The following e-mail exchange is discussing my article "Christian" Mysticism. The e-mailer's comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.


Exchange One

>I have read most of Jeanne Guyon's books and find it hard to arrive at the same conclusions as you did. In talking about the "self" Guyon almost always refers to Self-will or Self-Hood, to be Self-possessed which I interpret to mean to be ruled by the "old nature" as opposed to being ruled by the in dwelling spirit of Christ. In biblical terms ..to deny oneself and ones will so that the will and life of God can be made manifest in the believer.<

It would help if she used "Biblical terms" in her writings. Then they would not be open to the interpretation I have of them. But as it is, I do think my interpretation is possible.

> "praying the scripture" was a well established practice through almost the whole history of the Church. Even today many, if not most Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is able to open up a deeper meaning of the Scripture, a meaning that is relevant in a very personal way to each individual.<

I have read much Church history and have never seen the term "praying the Scripture" outside of Guyon's or maybe other "mystics" writings. That said, one should always depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Bible study. However, that is not distinct from using the mind and research in study. And that is the problem I have with Guyon's idea. The Spirit works through our minds and research, not apart from it.

>As to the difference between the mind and the heart ..well if Christ comes into a believer he comes into the Spirit of man and doesn't take residence in our minds, When Jesus said "The kingdom of God is within you" I don't think he meant within our intellects but within our hearts, so for me the distinction is obvious. If we believe the words of Jesus, that he sent the Holy Spirit and that he and the Father would come and abide IN us, it would seem that the teachings of Christians like Guyon warrant serious attention.<

You are assuming a trichotomous viewpoint of human nature in your remarks. However, I strongly disagree with trichotomy. I discuss the difference between trichotomy and dichotomy, the Biblical evidence for the latter rather than the former, and the implications thereof in my two-part article, Soul, Spirit, and Knowing God.

Moreover, your comments are ignoring the Biblical and lexical evidence I present in the article as to why, Biblically, there is no mind/ heart distinction. That said, when Christ indwells us, He indwells all of us, our entire inner persons. That would include our intellects, will, and emotions.

>Comparing her writings to TM is a very cheap shot indeed.<

You might consider it a cheap shot. I consider it warranted given the way she presents her ideas and the implications thereof.

>The truth is that few people today are able to face the reality of what she is expounding. The cost is simply too great for most people.

Regards
John
5/9/1999<

Few people accept what she said today because her ideas are based on unbiblical notions, like the mind/ heart distinction and trichotomy. If someone disagrees with the theology underlying someone's "devotional" advice, then it would make no sense to mindless follow it.

Exchange Two

Note: My comments to which the e-mailer is responding to are in purple and enclosed in double "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. The e-mailer's comments are in black and enclosed in single "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.

>Hello, thank you for reply. I would just like to note that I'm prepared to see the error of my ways if indeed I am in error, I mention at the end of this e-mail that I'm prepared to be convicted and corrected by the Holy Spirit and welcome any who wish to pray for me.<

> >I have read much Church history and have never seen the term "praying the Scripture" outside of Guyon's or maybe other "mystics" writings.<<

> Its called Lectio Divina and was practiced by many orders within the Catholic Church.<

Catholic mysticism within Catholic monasticism. Yes I have read of both and have never been too thrilled with either. But monasticism would be another whole discussion.

>>That said, one should always depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Bible study. However, that is not distinct from using the mind and research in study. And that is the problem I have with Guyon's idea. The Spirit works through our minds and research, not apart from it.<<

> I agree, our minds are not just "cut" off from the rest of us, as the Bible also states that our "minds" can be renewed as well as our "hearts" :)<

Actually, the Bible states:
[Rom 12:2] And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

So it would seem the renewal of the mind is the means by which the rest of our inner selves is renewed. Otherwise, I did a search of the word "renew*" and did not find any reference to the "heart" being renewed.

I did find the following though:
[Ps 51:10] Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

[2Cor 4:16] Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.

[Eph 4:23] and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,

[Col 3:10] and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

So it would seem our "sprit" - "the spirit of our mind" and "the inward man" can be renewed, plus we need to be "renewed in knowledge" -- but there's no mention of being renewed in the heart. But we are to ask for a "clean heart" to be "created" in us when we sin.

Moreover, as I stated before, the word "heart" when used in Scripture does NOT refer to the emotions only. I re-did a word study on the Greek word kardia last night using the four lexicons in my BibleWorks program. All four give the literal meaning as "heart" although a couple indicated it is never used in the literal sense in the NT. But three of the four indicated the figurative meaning is "inner self" (Friberg, Louw and Nida, and the UBS Dictionary). Liddell and Scott only gave the literal meaning without any mention of the figurative.

Moreover, Friberg and Louw and Nida both indicated the intellect is primarily in view in the word kardia. And a concordance study of the word "heart" will confirm this. Only be careful, some translations actually use the word "mind" to translate the word kardia in a few places.

A study of Mark 2:6-8 is instructive:
6 And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, "Why do you reason about these things in your hearts?

Note two things in this passage: first, verse six refers to "reasoning in their hearts." So the heart "reasons." This is a function of the intellect.

Second, Mark says they were "reasoning in their hearts" while Jesus perceived "they reasoned thus within themselves." Moreover, in the parallel passage in Matthew, Matthew narrates the scribes reaction by writing, "And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, 'This Man blasphemes!'" (Matt 9:3). So "in their hearts" and "within themselves" are used interchangeably in Scripture. So again, "the heart" is simply a way of saying "the inner self."

Now I am not saying the emotions, will, or even intuition is not included in the word kardia. In some verses one or the other of these is primarily in view. What I am saying is, the word includes all aspects of our inner selves but with the intellect more often than not being primarily in view.

The problem is, the word "heart" in English when used figuratively refers to the emotions. So in one sense using "heart" to translate kardia is not that accurate. It for this reason that, as I said, some translations actually use "mind" to translate kardia in some verses.

It is also for this reason that for my own translation I did consider translating kardia as "inner self." But since the name of my version is the Analytical-LITERAL Translation then using the literal translation of "heart" would be most appropriate. However, part of the "Analytical" aspect of my version is to give alternative or figurative meanings after words or phrases within brackets. So last night I decided to bracket the figurative meaning of "inner self" after the literal translation of "heart" in my translation.

The main point of the above is threefold; and I know both of these are difficult. First off, Bible readers must stop thinking "emotions" every time they see the word "heart" in Scripture. This is the figurative meaning of the English word but not of the Greek word.

Second, since the word kardia means the entire inner self, with an emphasis on the intellect, there is simply no way, Biblically, there can be a distinction between the "mind" and the "heart." The word "mind" (Gr., nous) does refer to the intellect as in English; but since the word "heart" includes the intellect it simply cannot be separate from the mind.

Now some will talk about a "head/ heart" distinction rather than a "mind/ heart" one. But the word "head" is never used figuratively in Scripture to refer to the "intellect" or any other aspect of our inner selves. A simple word study will again confirm this.

Third, the ideas of mystics like Guyon depend on there being a "head/ heart" or "mind/ heart" distinction. But since such ideas are not Biblical then that brings into question their ideas in general.

> >You are assuming a trichotomous viewpoint of human nature in your remarks. However, I strongly disagree with trichotomy. <<

> I understand what you are getting at, and this is not an easy area to get into. Psychiatry has done some interesting research in phenomena experienced by patients including events described as "Ego Death", an apparent experience of death of part of the individual.

Before I was a Christian I was involved in experiments with LSD where I experienced something I would call a "double self", where I was observing me FROM me, almost like there was a false self and true self. Many others have also reported similar experience.

Also I experienced "intuition" or "Knowing without Knowing" as a true potent force while on LSD. Others have said the same thing. Of course I can understand that subjective experiences like this can hardly form evidence of what is the true nature of man ...nonetheless many people have had the same experiences which I find interesting.<

You are appealing to what you experienced while on an illicit drug trip to support your ideas of human nature????? I would prefer to base my ideas on what the Scriptures teach. And my two-part article does just that. It shows very clearly that the words "soul" and "spirit" are used interchangeably in Scripture.

> I understand that many if not most Christians, prefer to avoid talking about these subjects as they see a link to so called "New Age/Eastern" Mysticism ...therefore we seem to be afraid of things like meditation.<

As I indicate in a short e-mail exchange I recently added to the end of the Guyon article, I have no problems with meditation. Scripture mentions the words "meditate" or "meditation" several times. However, in Scripture the type of mediation is not a mindless meditation. It is a content filled meditation.

A search for "meditat*" in the Bible will show that Biblical meditation is meditating on the Word of God (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Ps 199:15,23,148; 1Tim 4:15); the Person of God (Ps 63:6; Ps 145:5); the works of God (Ps 77:12; Ps 119:27; Ps 145:5); the name of God (Mal 3:16); and most generally, on "good" things (Phil 4:8).

> We assume maybe, that as we approach the Bible researching these topics we are starting from a neutral standpoint, whereas in fact we are not. The fact is we are living in the most materialistic rationalistic society in history, which greatly affects our own view of the world through the way we have been educated.

If Soul and Spirit are one and the same and we believe and maybe have experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit and believe that Jesus does in fact come into the heart of the believer, why then do we not have a direct "vision" of Jesus within us? Why do some of the aspects of the reality of the new birth appear to be "hidden" from our view? Hidden where?<

I really do not understand your questions. Nowhere are we told we are supposed to have "visions" if that is what your first question is asking. As for the second, we are to "grow" in grace and knowledge (2Pet 3:18). We gradually come to know more about God and His ways with us.

> Surely the New Testament would not talk so much about Faith and Love if our journey to find the truths of God is to be conducted from our intellect mainly as I think you are trying to say.<

First, to clarify, I believe all aspects of our inner selves are to be involved in our relation to God, our intellects, will, emotions, and intuition. But I do believe our intellect is primary in the sense it the place to begin and never is abandoned at any point in our journey. Our intellect is what keeps us from going astray; or more, correctly, what our intellect learns from the study of the Scriptures.

That said, to look at the examples you give, "faith" in Scripture primary refers to having faith in Christ (Gal 2:16,26; etc.). Moreover, the word "faith" includes the idea of "trust." Now to trust or have faith in someone you must know something about that person. Otherwise, it is a blind faith.

To attain knowledge of Christ requires a study of the Scriptures. It is our primary source to knowing about Christ. Then once we know enough about Christ that He is worthy of our faith then it is an act of the will to decide to place our faith or trust in Him.

So it is first the intellect, then the will that are involved in faith. Now yes, it is also necessary to be emotionally comfortable with that faith. To "have a bad feeling" about someone would prevent placing our trust in him. So our emotions are involved as well.

So again, our entire inner selves are involved in our faith in Christ. But it begins with our intellects and our intellects are never abandoned. Biblical faith is NOT a blind leap in the dark but a step in the direction in which the Scriptures lead us.

As for love, the main words for "love" in the Bible are the noun agape and the verb agapeo. But agape love is not a feelings based love.

The verb agapeo is used in the Bible's commands for us to love God and to love our neighbors (Matt 22:36-39). Now think about it for a moment. Can you command someone to love another person if by "love" you mean have the feeling of love? I don't think so. A person cannot "choose" to have feelings of love for someone. Or, contrary, a person cannot choose to stop feeling love for someone. If either was possible there wouldn't be so many broken hearts and broken marriages.

Agape love in the Bible is an act of the will. Moreover, our love for God and others is based on the intellectual knowledge of what God has done for us (1John 4:9,10,19). And this love leads us to action (John 14:15; 1John 3:16). I'm not saying feelings aren't involved. They can be. But we do not base how we act on those feelings but on knowledge and choices.

In fact, there is a separate word for love in the Bible that is more feelings based: phileo. But it used much less frequently and never in a command to love.

> I do not find as much dogmatic reliance on "Scripture" as being the predominant part of our contact with God in the Church of times gone as much as it is today?<

In Catholic church history that is only partially so. Even at times when the populace was mostly illiterate the Catholic church relied on the "church calendar" to constantly remind parishioners of the main events in the life of Christ. And, of course, stain glass windows, statues, and the like all were used for the same purpose (though sometimes abused into almost "worship" of the statues).

In Protestantism, from the start of the Reformation on, the Scriptures have always been primary. It has only in isolated groups and more recent times that the idea of "spirituality" apart from the Scriptures have developed.

But whatever the case, the Scriptures themselves do present themselves as being the basis for our knowledge of and relationship to God (Ps 119:11; John 17:17; 2Tim 3:14-17). It is the Word of God that we are to meditate on day and night (Ps 1:2).

> I have definitely in quite a few texts I have read, got the impression that some Christians were utterly convinced of the reality and the importance of an internal living relationship and "experience" of Christ within.<

No argument with that idea. Yes, Christians are to have a personal relationship with God. But that relationship is based on knowledge, entered into by an act of the will, with resultant feelings. The feelings are not to be the focus. Correct knowledge of God as based on the Scriptures is the basis of the relationship, not feelings.

> Such an experience of course should not contradict revealed scripture.<

Amen! But moreover, it should be based on Scripture from the start and throughout.

> I must underline that I am well aware of the dangers that can lie in a believer looking for "experiences", Its hard to find the right terminology for this subject matter, and many concepts can be misunderstood.

I spent many years in and out of Church looking for some deeper more meaningful understanding of what the real Christian life was. Just over a year ago I prayed to God that I just wanted to know him as he really is and not as other people tell me.

The same day or the day after, I started reading the works of St John of the Cross (another "Mystic" considered as perhaps the most influential in the western Church ) where he treats in detail the "death of self" and why it is necessary, he uses scripture all the way through to support what he obviously was going through himself. He says not all Christians are called to this path in this life and that it is only God who initiates such a path, not man. The presence of the Holy Spirit was very powerful while reading his books and later I also read Guyon, Molinos, and Fenelon.

I have tried on many occasions to tell myself that this is all too much for me and I would just prefer not to think about it. Finally after losing my peace on a number of occasions I finally had to accept that I was being called to abandon myself to and in God. For me its impossible to say that Guyon was wrong, when the fruit produced in her life had such great impact on others around her. And what she says makes me want to give all I am to Jesus.

If you truly believe that such teachings are dangerous and will lead me away from Gods will for my life and eternal destiny, then I would ask that you or a prayer group pray for me, pray that the Holy Spirit would convict me and show me the error of such teaching. I am deadly serious about my faith and I fight to keep myself open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.<

The texts of St John of the Cross are to be found at http://ccel.wheaton.edu.

A good text to start with would be A Spiritual Canticle of the Soul and the Bridegroom Christ. Then The Ascent of Mount Carmel.

I suggest you pray and consult whoever is your Spiritual Authority before reading these texts, it IS heavy stuff.

Agape
John
5/12/1999<

Interesting "testimony." To comment, let me start with giving the background to the article on Madam Guyon that started this discussion.

That article was originally written in 1989 as part of a class assignment at Denver Seminary. The class was titled "Christian Spirituality" and was taught by Dr. Bruce Demarhest. I took the class looking for a way to find a deeper relationship with God. But I was totally taken back by what was taught.

I should mention that Denver Seminary is run by the Conservative Baptist Association. I chose to go to Denver Seminary as I was attending a CBA church at the time. But in that class what was taught was Catholic mysticism. Now I found it to be highly suspect for Catholic mysticism to be taught at a Conservative Baptist seminary! The doctrinal differences between Catholics and Baptists is simply too great. And yes, doctrine is important in this discussion.

Part of our class assignment was to read various mystic's writings, like St. John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, and other many others. So I am familiar with such writings. What first struck me about the writings was there was no mention of the writer's salvation experience. Nowhere did they talk about when they realize they were sinners that needed a Savior, and that it was only through faith in Jesus Christ they could be saved.

Moreover, there were statements that contradicted the idea of salvation by grace. For instance, I remember reading statements in Assisi's writings to the effect that he believed he would be saved because of his poverty.

This troubled me very much. If these writers were wrong about the first and most important aspect of spirituality--salvation--then how could they be trusted in anything else they had to say on the subject?

I asked the teacher about it. Demarhest's response was, "They don't mention anything about salvation because they are far beyond that experience." I found this "explanation" very unsatisfactory. One never gets "beyond" salvation. The fact that we are saved by grace, and that we can do nothing to ever "add" to our salvation undergirds the entire Christian experience. Moreover, again, there were statements that specifically seemed to be teaching salvation by works.

At one point in my class, we had a Catholic priest come in to "teach" us more about Catholic spirituality. I found his teaching very troubling also. First off, he repeatedly mentioned about "being saved at baptism." Now this was at least an explanation as to why the Catholic mystics did not discuss their salvation experiences: they all believed they were saved when they were baptized as infants.

As I said, it was a Baptist seminary. So I found it very strange that someone should be brought in to teach a class that believed in baptismal regeneration of infants! Moreover, personally, I had long since rejected such concepts as being unbiblical.

Furthermore, this same priest led the class through a "visualization" exercise. I was the only one who did not participate. I found the whole idea rather suspect. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where we are told to visualize Jesus, especially since we don't know what He looked like! Moreover, if we want to depend on "feelings"--well let me just say, the whole thing gave me the "creeps."

After the Catholic priest left, I asked the teacher flat out why he had a Catholic priest promoting baptismal regeneration come to speak at a Baptist seminary. His response was there really was no disagreement between the two! He said Catholic baptism and later confirmation was simply the same as Baptists "dedicating" their infants and later being baptized.

I can see some parallels there. But some very important differences. Most of all, Baptists do not believe in baptismal regeneration! No Baptist who understand his theology at all believes he is saved because he was immersed!

It was after that class that I complained to the dean of students. I asked the simple question of why Catholic mysticism was being taught at a conservative Baptist seminary? He replied that the seminary tried to stay "open" to different viewpoints on spirituality.

But it wasn't just me who was concerned about what was being taught. One of Dr. Demarhest's colleges was Dr. Gordon Lewis. In fact, at the time the two of them were collaborating on a three-volume systematic theology work titled, Integrative Theology. The final volume was in the works at that time. Dr. Lewis was very concerned about what was being taught by Demarhest.

But I should mention the rest of the students in the class all seemed to have no problems with what was being taught. As already mentioned, my paper on Guyon was written for that class. The assignment was to read a book from a list of the writings of mystics, write a paper on it, and present the contents of that paper to the class.

Needless to say, the teacher was not too thrilled with my presentations or paper! But the rest of the papers presented were all in favor of their respective author's ideas. And if you're wondering, I got a C+ on my paper. It was probably the lowest grade I got on any paper I handed in at seminary.

Just to be sure the low grade was not due to a poorly written paper, I showed it to Dr. Lewis and Alan Myatt, who at that time was a teaching assistant and working on his Ph.D. Both of them thought the paper was very well written. Of course it didn't hurt that I quoted from one of Dr. Lewis' book in the paper!

But back to the actually teachings of the Catholic mystics, giving the above, they were basing their spirituality on the belief they were saved when they had water poured on their heads as infants. Moreover, knowing the "semi-pelegian" attitude of Catholicism, it would seem the statements by Assisi and others were probably because of they felt need to "maintain" their salvation by their good works.

Now it "just happened" that at this time I had begun my "journey" into Calvinism. I discuss this "journey" in my two-part article, Study of Acts 13:48.

As I became convinced of the Reformed viewpoint in regards to predestination/ election, and related issues, I also began to read the "spiritual" writings of Reformed and Puritan writers. And it was here that I finally found a "home" in terms of what constituted true spirituality.

Next to reading the Bible, I have found reading such writings by people like Owens, Edwards, Henry, Gurnell, and the like to be the best way to focus my mind on God. Currently I am reading a book containing sermons by C.H. Spurgeon. I took it with me to a local park recently. Laying in the woods and reading such a book is really a spiritual experience.

It would be impossible for me to summarize such writings in an e-mail. Maybe a good summary would be Acts 2:42: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers."

The "apostles' doctrine" is contained in the Scriptures. So Bible study is first and foremost. Second is "fellowship." Communing with other Christians is vital to Christian growth. The "breaking of bread" might be a reference to the Lord's Supper. So this could be taken as referring to going to church and partaking of the ordinance of communion. Or, it could just be referring to communal meals, thus emphasizing the idea of fellowship.

Third is "prayers." So praying is essential. As to what is appropriate prayer, it most definitely is not mindless repetition of one phrase or prayer as is often done in mysticism. For instance, I remember discussing in my class the "Jesus prayer" often repeated in mystical circles: "Lord have mercy on me a sinner."

The prayer itself is Biblical (see Luke 18:13). But repeating it over and over again is not. I remember discussing in class one mystic who repeated this prayer thousands of times a day! Even those who found the class helpful thought the idea was absurd. There is no way one can seriously be considering what they are saying when repeating something that many times! And it is just such "vain repetition" that Jesus warned against (Matt 6:7).

Appropriate prayer can be understood by studying the various prayers in the Bible (see, for example, Daniel 9, Nehemiah 9, Matt 7:5-13; John 17; and various places in Paul's epistles).

Basically, a Reformed attitude towards spirituality is about as far from Catholic mysticism as one could get. For that matter, the "Reformed-Baptist perspective" to which I ascribe to is far from any kind of Catholic viewpoint.

For instance, the Reformed viewpoint includes the idea of "eternal security" or better "the perseverance of the saints" (the "P" in the Calvinistic acronym "TULIP.") This view is important as it "frees" a person from fearing he will loose his salvation if he does not act in a certain way. So one can grow closer to God with confidence that he is always accepted. Such a view is a far cry from mystics like Assisi who seem to think they are making themselves acceptable, or more acceptable to God by their actions.

Sorry I cannot be more specific in regards to my "Christian Spirituality" class I took at seminary or the books we read. But I just recently did some "spring cleaning." I went through stuff I had stored in my file cabinets and pitched anything I didn't think I would need any more; and that included all my old notes, papers, handouts, etc., from seminary, including those for that class.

I also went through my library looking for books I had read and figured I wouldn't need anymore. Worthwhile ones I plan on donating to my church's library. Ones I did not consider worthwhile I pitched into the trash, and those included some books by "mystics."

So that is the background to the "Mysticism" article and what I remember of the writings of mystics from my class on the subject. As you can see, I have studied this issue and, obviously, came to much different conclusions than you.

In sum, I disagree with two of the major "planks" of mysticism: the idea of a "head/ heart" or "mind/ distinction" and the doctrine of trichotomy. Also I strongly disagree with Catholic doctrines like baptismal regeneration and the belief one can loose their salvation. As such, a Catholic mystical approach to spirituality is one I have looked at and rejected as being unbiblical.

As for "dangers" in mysticism, that is hard to say. It would depend on what direction mysticism leads a person. For instance, if it leads someone to completely "withdraw" from the world into an isolated setting, as has often happened in monasticism, then I have major problems with it.

There is no Biblical basis for a Christian to live a purposeful, solitary lifestyle. For short periods of time, fine; but not as a way of life. We are commanded to love one another, which is impossible if one is living in isolation (John 13:34). Further, as mentioned above, one of the main points of spirituality, as seen in Acts 2:42, is "fellowship." Moreover, Paul considered the idea of withdrawing from the world to be an absurdity (1Cor 5:10).

And finally, as I was going through my file cabinets, I came across a list of "Recommended Reading on Christian Spirituality" I had made up a while ago. It lists books by Reformed and Puritan writers past and present. Such books I believe provide the best approach to Christian Spirituality. It reminded me that I also had the list in digital form. So I posted it on my site. It is located at Christian Spirituality: Recommended Reading.

Such writings are also available on the 'Net at various places. Some such links are on my Classic Christian Writings links page.

Lastly, I have spent some time on this letter as the subject of what constitutes appropriate spirituality is important. So unless you object, I would like to post the above, along with our previous exchange, on my site. I would post your e-mails without any editing, except to correct spelling mistakes. That way people can read your views and the how I arrived at mine and arrive at their own conclusions.

If you want to respond to any of the above feel free to do so and I will post that also. But I really don't know if I have anything to add, except to clarify anything if it is needed.

This discussion is concluded at Mysticism Article Discussion - Part Two.

Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light

Ethics, Spirituality, Christian Life     Problematic Theologies
Christian Mysticism: Ethics, Spirituality, Christian Life

Text Search     Alphabetical List of Pages      Subject Index
General Information on Articles      Contact Information

Darkness to Light Home Page
www.dtl.org

Click Here for Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla