by A. W. Tozer
In a recent letter a man from Jamestown, NY, quoted a statement from an editorial, "Three Degrees of Religious Knowledge," which appeared in these columns July 25, and asked for clarification.
The quotation was taken from that part of the editorial dealing with the third degree of knowledge: "... it is knowledge by direct spiritual experience ... Since it was not acquired by reason operating on intellectual data, the possibility of error is eliminated."
The letter comments on this as follows: "This statement seems to me to parallel the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. I was always taught that the holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and life. My observation has been that most of the false cults base their so-called doctrines and revelations on personal spiritual experience. I would appreciate your further clarification on this editorial statement ... defining the boundaries with which `direct spiritual experience' can be depended upon without danger of departure from the revealed Word of God as contained in the holy Scriptures and as projected in the earthly life of Christ."
This matter deserves further explanation and I'll be glad to make it.
In my editorial I said that there are three degrees of knowledge open to Christians. The first is the common knowledge shared with all normal persons, namely, the data furnished by the senses and by reason operating upon such data. This embraces all knowledge of natural things from the first scrap of knowledge enjoyed by an hour-old baby to the highest reaches of scientific information acquired by the pooled efforts of the race.
The second is the knowledge received by faith. It consists of data given by divine revelation and received by the believing mind without proof. It is taken on trust and cannot in the very nature of it be demonstrated as being true. Were proof possible then it would belong in the first category and faith would be unnecessary.
The third kind of knowledge is that given by direct spiritual experience. This differs radically from both of the others. It has nothing to do with the senses and so is not physical or natural data. It has nothing to do with ethics or doctrine and so is not moral or theological knowledge. I do not believe that God teaches doctrine by direct unmediated experience. The exact opposite is true. The Scriptures are the source of all rational knowledge about moral and religious things, except those things that are revealed by nature as mentioned in Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:19-20, and they are few and inadequate.
Knowledge by spiritual experience is not mental, it is intuitive. It is consciousness, it is acquaintance with something or someone by direct awareness. It might help the reader to understand what we mean by such words as "awareness" and "consciousness" if he were to ask himself how he knows he exists, how he knows he is himself and not someone else, how he knows he is alive and not dead. The answer is simply that he "knows" these things by conscious awareness of which reason is no part. Let him attempt to prove to himself that he exists, for instance, and he will find that the "he" who is doing the demonstrating must first be aware that he exists before he can begin to prove that he does.
When the French philosopher, Descartes, sought to get to the root of all knowledge he thought away all accepted facts, went back till he found the one irreducible element of knowledge that could not be challenged and came up with his celebrated Cogito, ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am." But let no one imagine for a moment that with his little syllogism Descartes went all the way back. He did nothing of the kind. The truth is that he was by intuition aware of his existence before he ever began to notice that he was thinking. His self-knowledge antedated thought and all he did was to prove to reason that he existed by proof that it could understand: "I think, therefore I am."
This illustrates but does not explain what we mean by religious knowledge by direct spiritual experience. Stated in other language this means simply that there is at the root of true religion an inward witness, an awareness of God and Christ at the farthest-in core of the renewed Christian's spirit given to him by the Spirit of God. This experience results from faith in and obedience to the Scriptures. It is the end result of Bible doctrine but it is not that doctrine. It is a consciousness of God and spiritual things too deep and wonderful to utter or even think.
If this sounds too extreme or mystical let me remind my readers that it was once an accepted and expected phenomenon in most Protestant churches. In happier and holier times conversion was held to be (among other blessed things) an immediate acquaintance with God in living, spiritual experience. This came about as the result of the Word preached in the power of the Spirit.
And let's remember one thing more. Even today there are those who can testify that they too know what I am talking about here. We do not need to appeal to the dead past for support of our teaching. God still has His thousands who know what the inner witness is.
( The Size of the Soul, Chapter 27 )
[ Back ]
Placed online by the Neve family. We'd like to hear your comments : click here