mystery or any others: What do you believe is the official Christian Mystic take on the doctrine of Hell? What do you believe is their take on the teachings of Jesus on being "born again?" The reason why I ask is that many Christian mystics do not believe in a doctrine of Hell because it sounds too harsh. I do not consider anyone who does not believe in eternal damnation for non-believers to be a genuine Christian, therefore meaning that I do not believe that they are born again, meaning they are not children of God. What I have heard so called "Christian Mystics" claim is some sort of ambivalent, subjective, and esoteric view of Jesus' teaching on Hell that led me to believe that they could not possibly know Jesus in their hearts. I believe that the reason they do this is because they are suppressing the truth and not trusting in God, or because they love their sin. One doctrine that many people attack is the doctrine of Hell, but they still claim to be Christians, which I believe is a bit senseless. Also, they will minimize the doctrine of Sin and disregard an objective view of God's holiness. They will repudiate sound doctrine because they don't like the Jesus of scripture, so they will create teachings and fables, and make up a Jesus in their heads that fits their desires, perspectives, and whims. This is what I have found that many so called Christian mystics believe. They are the ones calling themselves this. The reason why I ask about your take on Sin, Hell, and God's Judgment is so that I can better understand your reaons to say what you do. Whether somebody calls themseleves liberal Christians, evangelicals, conservatives, mystics, gnostics, etc, I cannot possibly regard them or anyone as a true Christian (born again) if they seek to attack any major doctrine of Christianity. If, however, somebody who is a Christian Mystic is in agreement with central doctrine and shows spiritual fruit in their lives, I will welcome them as brothers irregardless of their label or lack thereof. I do not know much about the movements and categories and history, so I kinda went with what I encountered on the streets, so to speak. Blessings.

Well the biggest problem with the word mystic is that there is no proper definition or movement.


I choose to embrace the word, due to the fact that I believe earnestly that God almighty has spoken to me. I believe in scripture 100% and believe nothing is more imperative than sound doctrine. I believe in hell, because scripture clearly paints that portrait, I believe in holiness, that it is imperative (and something I am growing in).

But, I believe scripture points to a God who is living and active, that God speaks to His people, that He does it thru a variety of different ways. I believe that these ways never contradict scripture, that they are very real. The article posted above took some things done by fringe whackos and made blanket statements. No believer with a aliving and active walk would think it wierd to hear a brother in Christ talk about how they feel the Lord is leading them in a new direction or to a new place etc. All believers believe God is involved with us on some levels.


You can hate the term all you want, and try to state that using it implies this belief or that belief, but you would be wrong, there are too many variations for it too be valid IMO.
Even if you talk with your pastor, and talk about a "movement" then you are still not talking about the words definition, but about a movement that was wrong.

therockismighty wrote:

Mark wrote:

"God became man so that man might become God" - St. Augustine of Hippo

How wrong indeed... we are to be like Christ, but not become God... very very dangerous territory.

You really misunderstood it. It is not becoming ontologically equal to God but sharing in the divine nature of God.

Mark wrote:

therockismighty wrote:

Mark wrote:

"God became man so that man might become God" - St. Augustine of Hippo

How wrong indeed... we are to be like Christ, but not become God... very very dangerous territory.

You really misunderstood it. It is not becoming ontologically equal to God but sharing in the divine nature of God.

Thegra on page 3 wrote:

Right. Theosis doesn't say we become ontologically God, but rather we share in His divine nature.

We think alike. ^_^

Nosral wrote:

Well the biggest problem with the word mystic is that there is no proper definition or movement.


I choose to embrace the word, due to the fact that I believe earnestly that God almighty has spoken to me. I believe in scripture 100% and believe nothing is more imperative than sound doctrine. I believe in hell, because scripture clearly paints that portrait, I believe in holiness, that it is imperative (and something I am growing in).

But, I believe scripture points to a God who is living and active, that God speaks to His people, that He does it thru a variety of different ways. I believe that these ways never contradict scripture, that they are very real. The article posted above took some things done by fringe whackos and made blanket statements. No believer with a aliving and active walk would think it wierd to hear a brother in Christ talk about how they feel the Lord is leading them in a new direction or to a new place etc. All believers believe God is involved with us on some levels.


You can hate the term all you want, and try to state that using it implies this belief or that belief, but you would be wrong, there are too many variations for it too be valid IMO.
Even if you talk with your pastor, and talk about a "movement" then you are still not talking about the words definition, but about a movement that was wrong.

Mark wrote:

therockismighty wrote:

Mark wrote:

"God became man so that man might become God" - St. Augustine of Hippo

How wrong indeed... we are to be like Christ, but not become God... very very dangerous territory.

You really misunderstood it. It is not becoming ontologically equal to God but sharing in the divine nature of God.

Ditto. St. Augustine is the man. Everyone should read Confessions.

A lot of people speak about having a "personal relationship with Jesus."
That's exactly what mysticism is.

therockismighty wrote:

Yep cool, I get that, still whats wrong with just calling myself a Believer in Christ?... that is my point, why call yourself something that can be alligned with something opposite to what you believe in.

I feel no need to argue or go on about anything else, I respect you all and may you keep on keeping on.

Peace out.

nothing is wrong with not calling yourself mystic. but you actually attacked mystics and your ideas of mystic belief. but as long as you are willing to back up this far, we are basically in agreement.

Phil asked me to post on this;

A good introduction and critique of Eastern mysticism from a Christian perspective is found in my blog here: http://sirhems-eastofeden.blogspot.com/ I also discuss the relationship of Eastern and Western mysticism to some extent there. Mysticism (cf. the Encylcopeedia of Philosphy article "Mysticism" quoted in ibid) is not a doctrine but -for lack of a better term- a powerfully compelling Experience which is most often presumed to be ontological rather than mental/cognitive/conceptual. There are convincing indications from contemporary neuroscience that said experience may actually be a cognitive illusion (cf. my blog discusses one prominent former Buddhist became convinced of this via neuroscience and actually became a materialist and the scientific studies that led her there). Historical relativity of ontological or conceptual claims associated with mysticism shows that mysticism is contextualized by different cultures and belief systems; from this I argue contra New Age interpretations that mysticism per se has no theology (a mystic can have a theology, but mystical experience does not entail a particular theology in and of itself); the idea that it conflicts with theology per se would be difficult to argue for reasons I stated in the above article (cf. the long tradition of Western mysticism e.g. within Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the longstanding acceptance within those traditions -as long as it is not interpreted contra e.g. Nicea, Chalcedon etc.).

Two apologies: the article is about 21 pages if you print it out, but you can skim around; the article is technical at points and may require those without a background in religious studies and/or philosphy to look up a number of definitions. BUT YOU WILL LEARN A LOT FROM IT.

Coming to terms with Eastern mysticism is one of the most challenging issues facing the church today. I believe if one takes the time to study the above article one will be more prepared to meet this crucial challenge of our post-modern age.

hmm mystery you are jumping between gnosticism and mysticism quite readily. Most gnostics believe that Christ was divine - but not God. Mystics are those who feel that they need to do something in order to communicate with God. As Christians, God lives within us by His Holy Spirit and althought there were instances where people in the bible fell into trances, more often than not it was God initiated, meaning that it was God who moved the heart and mind of the person without the person doing anything to invoke this encounter.

Gnosis just means knowledge in Greek and it was not full knowledge. God calls us to have epignosis, full and complete knowledge of Him and it can only be done through His regenerating us and endwelling in us by His Spirit.

that really makes no sense. mystics dont say that anyone HAS to do anything, they just have a way to communicate that is not taught in traditional chuches, namely meditation.

im jumping in now, and I haven't read all the previous posts, but my .02 is that gnosticism is an old heresy, but mysticism is cool.

FuneralOath wrote:

The reason why I ask is that many Christian mystics do not believe in a doctrine of Hell because it sounds too harsh.

That's news to me.

Anywho, here is a great text on leading a more devout and prayerful life.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/desales/devout_life.html

Not specifically mentioned by St. Francis de Sales as being a mystical text, but generally regarded as such.