1). On pg. 13 Tozer says, "We might be wise to follow the insight of the enraptured heart rather then the more cautious reasoning of the theological mind." What lies behind such a statement as this? Why do you think Tozer would say this? (Do you think he is disparaging the "Theological mind").
Tozer is saying that it is better to listen to those who truly love God, than to those who only think about God. Since God is incomprehensible, no one can actually understand God, so one can only speculate, and even then we should not limit God to our descriptions because they are used to describe humans and cannot fully tell of all of God's being. I do not think that Tozer is disparaging the "Theological mind" he is merely saying that we need both the Theological mind and The enraptured heart. We need to love and worship God, but at the same time it would benefit us if we knew who we were worshipping. I think that Tozer prefers that we do worship God without studying him, because studying God is a futile mission.
2).Tozer is trafficking in deep theological reflection on p.15-16. He draws the distinction between the “creature-thoughts” we have when we consider attributes of humans. Human attributes are parts of who we are because we are composite creatures. Though thoughts we must have when we consider the nature of God are infinitely different, because God is One.
In good company with many theologians before him, T. expresses that, “[God’s] being He owes to no one. His substance is indivisible. He has no parts but is single in His unitary being. The doctrine of the divine unity means not only that there is but one God [Deut.6:4ff]; it means also that God is simple, uncomplex, one with Himself. The harmony of his being is the result not of a perfect balance of parts but of the absence of parts…All of God does all that God does; He does not divide Himself to perform a work, but works in the total unity of His being. An attribute, then, is not a part of God. It is how God is, and as far as the reasoning mind can go, we may say that it is what God is…He is simply BEING Himself.” (p.15) How do you respond to these weighty ideas? What questions, thoughts do you have? Any connections made? Describe.
It is a very confusing concept because we know that God is three in one, the trinity. But we also know that he is distinctly God, so it can get very confusing. And how can the harmony of God come from the absence of all parts. What parts? And how can these parts be absent from God. It does not really make sense to me. Which is mainly why I do not try to study God because it is absolutely pointless. No one can understand God.
Thank you, Celine, for your thoughtful, honest response! I like what you've said in the first response. You are doing justice to the role of both the mind and heart. And you're right: we can't fully "get to the end" of God, but remember that he nevertheless invites us to know him. He does reveal himself to us. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things REVEALED belong to us and our children forever." Deut. 29:29. There are things revealed, and they DO belong to us. We can claim those things as True knowledge of God. When we do the task of theology ("the study of God"), we should never presume to be able to grasp Him, but I don't think it is pointless. We need humility and grace: humility to know our inability to understand, and grace to lift our understanding to where it would never ascend on our own. Thank you, Celine!
ReplyDelete