• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Christian Mysticism Evil?

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
WHY I AM NOT A MYSTIC

The English term “mystic” comes from the Greek term, μυστικός, “mystikos,” an initiate into a mystery religion. Mystery religions were cults of antiquity in which participation was reserved to initiates. Although the mystery religions were practiced in classical antiquity, the initiates understood that the mysteries were much older. One of the popular Roman mystery religions, for example, was Mithraism, which took its name from an old Persian god named Mithra, a name that appears in archeological finds dating to 1,500 BC. That Mitra is still a popular surname in India gives some indication of how geographically widespread the cult of Mithra was, in its various forms. Today, the term “mysticism” refers to the pursuit of a direct experience with the divine, the supernatural, or ultimate reality, typically through special practices intended to bring about such experiences. Mysticism is distinguished from normal religious faith by its emphasis on direct personal experiences that the mystic interprets as encounters with the divine. Mysticism has usually been pursued within the context of monasticism; monks and nuns typically live a life of solitude and silence conducive to mystical practices. The core of mysticism is its embrace of techniques that are intended to achieve altered states of consciousness.

Mysticism is not part of biblical Christianity. There is no biblical support for mysticism in general nor for such mystical practices as chanting meditation, transcendental meditation, or astral projection. Mysticism, like the monasticism it has been associated with, appears to have been engrafted into Christianity (ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH; added) from Buddhism and other pagan, Eastern religions during the same period of time when countless pagan practices and beliefs entered a deeply compromised church. Roman Catholic mysticism is simply a thinly “Christianized” form of Eastern mysticism. Mysticism has demonstrated the ability to adapt to almost any religio-cultural circumstances.

During the Reformation, the reformers largely rejected mysticism along with monasticism. The mystics focused upon experience, but the reformers insisted that Scripture was paramount...

Please pay attention to this! God does not work in the silence, but familiar spirits do...

The doctrine of the atonement tends to be lost in mystical thinking.

The problem with literal translations of Bible-only theology is that it is suggesting that scripture sewn together from various sources in a long-distant culture and translated multiple times can be put into the context of a modern reality and work for everyone. It can't. It may work for some folks, (and all the power to them!) but the spirituality of the Bible isn't accessible by others growing up in different environments and circumstances than it was originally developed and experienced.

Mystics tend to be capable of reading patterns in various religious sources, so tend to be able to interpret them according to their own perspective, gaining access to inspiration a literal translation limits. The familiar spirits you fear are characters in our psyche that can be faced and interpreted to inspire us to grow and progress. They are not always...pleasant, but the alternative is stagnation.

And even literal interpretation tends to involve something of the same reinterpretation mystics and other folks who symbolically read scripture use to find meaning, since the Bible is vast and often contradictory in its ideas. So where slavery can be justified in the Bible, it can also be condemned depending on how it is read.

For the mystic, atonement is often central: often it is the very reason to seek out a deeper relationship, for it is "at-ONE-ment," reconciling oneself with the I AM--the ego crucified on the cross between the individual and God.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Is Christian Mysticism evil? About as much as Christianity is on the whole most likely.

Are there warnings to heed? Yes, if you are not accustomed to thinking and experiencing spiritual truths without strict adherence to dogma, then you should be forewarned that mystical experience often contradicts or transcends dogma.
I think that, in general, a lot of Christian theology misses the mark. Dogma is largely misunderstood. Mysticism delves into the truth that's written in our DNA -- truth that we all inherently "know." And, being what it is, dogma often doesn't align with that truth. I think it superficially addresses that truth, but "takes a left turn at Albuquerque" somewhere.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Thanks for that.
You're welcome.

What exactly are you afraid of ? Do you believe your saviour would allow a genuine will to surrender to God to cause your downfall ?
That seems to me to contradict everything Jesus said.

To me, that definition describes what I assumed was the basis of faith of any Christian.
Well, yes, it does describe that. Problem is, many Christians come to their experiences through pre-formed belief and dogma. It's a "head thing," whereas mysticism is a "core thing." When the knowledge one has gained is knocked off its props by a core experience, it's frightening to many. To many, it seems as if that experience threatens their "faith," because their "faith" is all about dogma.

And if not, then what do such claims and statements amount to ?
It's in most cases an emotional response. Emotional experience is emotional experience, and it's real, but IMO not the same thing as a core experience of the Divine. I'll get a lot of argument about that, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yep. Thy were speaking to that angel of lie-ght (2 Corinthians 11:4).

I actually used to minister (for a brief time, as time goes), as a Roman Catholic (which I was for 30 years), in such an specialized ministry that dealt with such things, that even EWTN said were "expert in their field". So, I know what I have seen, witnessed.
I challenge that. But it certainly explains why you've chosen to leave the church and join the cult. many of these people were great saints of the church, whose works are revered and studied. but of course, you'd say that they "led the church astray." As far as I'm concerned, and I have the preponderance of Christian scholasticism on my side (which you will also dismiss), people like Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine of Hippo, John Crysostom, Anthony the Great Eriugena, Hildegaard, Anselm, Julian of Norwich, and even as late as Thomas Merton, Philip Newell, and Tom Cowan have been the heart and soul of the church.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
WHY I AM NOT A MYSTIC

The English term “mystic” comes from the Greek term, μυστικός, “mystikos,” an initiate into a mystery religion. Mystery religions were cults of antiquity in which participation was reserved to initiates. Although the mystery religions were practiced in classical antiquity, the initiates understood that the mysteries were much older. One of the popular Roman mystery religions, for example, was Mithraism, which took its name from an old Persian god named Mithra, a name that appears in archeological finds dating to 1,500 BC. That Mitra is still a popular surname in India gives some indication of how geographically widespread the cult of Mithra was, in its various forms. Today, the term “mysticism” refers to the pursuit of a direct experience with the divine, the supernatural, or ultimate reality, typically through special practices intended to bring about such experiences. Mysticism is distinguished from normal religious faith by its emphasis on direct personal experiences that the mystic interprets as encounters with the divine. Mysticism has usually been pursued within the context of monasticism; monks and nuns typically live a life of solitude and silence conducive to mystical practices. The core of mysticism is its embrace of techniques that are intended to achieve altered states of consciousness.

Mysticism is not part of biblical Christianity. There is no biblical support for mysticism in general nor for such mystical practices as chanting meditation, transcendental meditation, or astral projection. Mysticism, like the monasticism it has been associated with, appears to have been engrafted into Christianity (ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH; added) from Buddhism and other pagan, Eastern religions during the same period of time when countless pagan practices and beliefs entered a deeply compromised church. Roman Catholic mysticism is simply a thinly “Christianized” form of Eastern mysticism. Mysticism has demonstrated the ability to adapt to almost any religio-cultural circumstances.

During the Reformation, the reformers largely rejected mysticism along with monasticism. The mystics focused upon experience, but the reformers insisted that Scripture was paramount, and its general, objective revelation superior to the personal, subjective revelations of the mystics. Martin Luther's insistence on the superiority of Scripture to mystical experience is seen in his rejection of the theology of Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525, executed for his role in the Peasants' War), who was heavily influenced by the Rhineland Mystic, Johannes Tauler (1300-1361). Müntzer's theology was based upon mystical experience; he began to teach the supremacy of the “inner light,” which he interpreted as the revelation of the Holy Spirit, as against the authority of Scripture. Luther's response was to declare that he would still accept Scripture even if Müntzer “had swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all!”

George Fox (1624-1691), the founder of the Society of Friends (popularly known as the Quakers) created a culturally Protestant mystical sect. Fox believed that each person has an “inner light,” which Fox interpreted as Christ dwelling within us. Like almost all mystics, Fox believed and taught that Scripture was not always infallible and could be overruled by the “inner light.” Quaker worship consists of silent meditation; sometimes, a speaker will be led to speak audibly to the congregation, but often the entire hour will pass in silence. The purpose of sitting is silence is to wait for God to speak directly to the individual, i.e., to wait for a mystical experience. Like many other mystics, Quakers tend to subscribe to panentheism (the belief that God is in everything and everyone) and universalism (the belief that everyone will eventually be saved).

Given that the Quakers are mystics, it is not surprising that Quakers have been instrumental in the fairly recent, widespread introduction of mysticism into mainstream Protestant evangelical practice. Richard Foster and Dallas Willard crossed paths in a small Quaker church in Van Nuys, California, when Willard (though a Southern Baptist) was attending there and Foster was called there as a young pastor fresh out of seminary. Both men have been important writers and theorists promoting mystical practices in wider Christianity, but Foster has been especially important. Foster's 1978 book, “The Celebration of Discipline” was a huge bestseller; Christianity Today listed it as one of the top ten Christian books of the 20th Century. Yet Foster promotes the practice known as astral projection:

In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body. Look back so you can see yourself … and reassure your body that you will return momentarily ….Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal creator. Rest in his presence. Listen quietly...[to] any instruction given. p. 27.

A mystical practice promoted under the rubric of “spiritual formation” is usually called “centering prayer” or “contemplative prayer,” but it is not prayer at all. It is an Eastern meditative practice known as chanting meditation or transcendental meditation. This form of meditation seeks to create a mental void where all conscious thought is blocked out. To achieve this mental void—known as “the silence”--the person repeats a single word or short phrase over and over. In Hinduism, this phrase is known as a “mantra.” The mantra may need to be repeated 20, 30, or even hundreds of times to achieve the mental void. In teaching His followers how to pray, Jesus warned against using “vain repetitions, as the heathen do,” because God hears us the first time we say something (Mat. 6:7). But, again, “contemplative prayer” or “centering prayer” is not prayer; rather, it is a technique for bringing about a mystical experience.

The goal of this technique is the mental void or the silence. Mystics within Christian cultures sometimes argue that at the center of one's being, there is God, and the purpose of the silence is to allow God to speak from within. They believe that the “inner light” is God who dwells within every man. But Christ directed us to pray “Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name” (Mat. 6:9). God dwells in heaven (1 Kings 8:43; 2 Chron. 6:30; Psalm 103:19; Mat. 5:45; 23:9), which is an actual place (Acts 1:11; Heb. 1:3; 8:1, 5; 9:24; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 4:1-2). Mystics quote Luke 17:21, “the kingdom of God is within you” as evidence that God lives inside every person, but the Greek word translated as “within” can also be translated “among,” and it is clear from the context that Christ is not saying that the kingdom of God is inside of us. The Pharisees had asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come, and Jesus responded that the kingdom of God [Jesus Himself] is among you right now. In the following verses, Jesus points out that his Second Advent will also be a visible, physical appearance, just like His first Advent.

The “silence” that mystics hope to achieve by repeating their mantra is really a trance, and it is properly understood as a form of self-hypnosis. When a person is in an hypnotic trance, he is highly susceptible to suggestion. In Christian cultures, proponents of this technique would have us believe that we will encounter the God of the Bible in this meditative trance. But the fact that the technique is not authorized in Scripture, and originated and is commonly used in Eastern religions, suggests that we might encounter some other spirit. Adventist pastor Rick Howard writes:

. . .when a person enters this silence . . . they are entering a place where the powers of evil angels can create whatever illusion they desire. . . . the modern-day Christian, upon entering the silence, will believe they have come into the presence of God, when in reality they are under the control of the same demons as the psychics, spirit mediums, and ancient mystics of the church, those of any religion or group that relies on supernatural experiences as evidence of their contact with God” The Omega Rebellion, p. 51

The spirits that work in the silence will work within a given mystic's belief system. They will not—at least not at first—suggest anything alien or contrary to the mystic's existing belief system. Ray Yungen writes:

Please pay attention to this! God does not work in the silence, but familiar spirits do. Moreover, what makes it so dangerous is that they are very clever. One well known New Ager revealed that his guiding (familiar) spirit candidly disclosed: 'We work with all who are vibrationally sympathetic; simple and sincere people who feel our spirit moving, but for the most part, only within the context of their current belief system.'” A Time of Departing, p. 87

What tends to happen over time, however, is that the mystic enjoys the mystical experiences more than any other aspect of his faith. The experiences are called “extremely pleasurable” and even “ecstatic.” The mystic eventually places more credence in his personal experiences than in Scripture. This makes perfect sense, because the mystic believes he is experiencing God, so why give more credence to an old book than to God?

But, of course, the power behind the mystical experiences is not God, and it gradually and almost imperceptibly leads the mystic toward false doctrine. Typically, the false doctrines include at least one, and usually more than one, of the following four:

  1. monism = all is one, all reality is a unified whole, with no sharp demarcation between Creator, creation and creature;
  2. pantheism = everything is God, the tree, the flower, the bird the cat, the human—all are God;
  3. panentheism = God is inside of everything and everyone; and
  4. universalism = everyone will ultimately share in eternal life.
These four false doctrines crop up so frequently in mystical thinking across the ages and across the boundaries of culture and formal religion that the demons working the “silence” beat must all be following the same playbook.

These ideas soon lead to a false ecumenism and a blurring of religious demarcations. Scripture is very clear that Jesus Christ is the only way to God the Father, and our only hope of eternal salvation; those who do not have Christ are lost. (John 3:16, 36; 14:6; 1 John 5:12). But mysticism chafes at such dualistic, black/white, right/wrong thinking, emphasizing oneness and universalism instead.

The doctrine of the atonement tends to be lost in mystical thinking; what need is there of Christ's work of mediation in the heavenly sanctuary when anyone, from any religious tradition—Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, Christian—can have a direct, unmediated experience with God? The mystic removes 'sin' by performing meditative exercises to bring himself into a perceived state of oneness with God. The atonement, the sanctuary, and most of the rest of the Bible make little sense in a mystical context. This isn't surprising because mysticism is external to, and long pre-dates, Christianity. (Advindicate)
This is the largest load of misunderstood malarkey I've seen in a while. This post has little understanding, either of the movement it decries or the Christianity it seeks to defend.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
I find the concept of theosis interesting... to me, this is the first step in Christian mysticism.

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God"

Ok, thanks. I think best would be to remain in Biblical teaching. And to me, that doesn’t sound Biblical and that is why I think it is not good.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
This is the largest load of misunderstood malarkey I've seen in a while. This post has little understanding, either of the movement it decries or the Christianity it seeks to defend.

Yes I can understand why you would say the above without addressing the content of the post you are quoting from. You are a "christian" practicing the occult teachings of Shamanism according to your belief tag. Thanks anyways but I believe there is no scripture teachings in the bible that says that a christian is to practice mysticism which predates christianity and does not have it's origins with God. I believe the post you were quoting from is factual and was only provided as a help. Go do your research. I believe you quoting you is not a counter argument to verified factual truth so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes I can understand why you would say the above without addressing the content of the post you are quoting from. You are a "christian" practicing the occult teachings of Shamanism according to your belief tag. Thanks anyways but I believe there is no scripture teachings in the bible that says that a christian is to practice mysticism which predates christianity and does not have it's origins with God. I believe the post you were quoting from is factual and was only provided as a help. Go do your research. I believe you quoting you is not a counter argument to verified factual truth so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I don’t think you do understand why. There’s no need to address the content; the content is worthless.

I am a Christian (no quotation marks warranted) whose spiritual practice is shamanic. We’ve already been over this. “Shamanism” is a very broad umbrella. The Shamanism I use is not occult by any stretch of the imagination.

What you term “verified factual truth” is simply ... not. It’s obvious that you don’t understand mysticism as practiced in Christianity; I’ve already provided a working definition of Christian mysticism — you can go directly to the resource book yourself. It’s further obvious that whatever “resources” you got your information from don’t understand it either.

If you don’t want to learn about what you “oppose,” that’s your business, but when you go spouting untruths against what is a very deep, very helpful, very legitimate practice that Christians have practiced since the beginning, you’re going to get some blowback from me.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
Problem is, many Christians come to their experiences through pre-formed belief and dogma. It's a "head thing," whereas mysticism is a "core thing." When the knowledge one has gained is knocked off its props by a core experience, it's frightening to many. To many, it seems as if that experience threatens their "faith," because their "faith" is all about dogma.

I think you’ve nailed it.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
I don’t think you do understand why. There’s no need to address the content; the content is worthless.

I am a Christian (no quotation marks warranted) whose spiritual practice is shamanic. We’ve already been over this. “Shamanism” is a very broad umbrella. The Shamanism I use is not occult by any stretch of the imagination.

What you term “verified factual truth” is simply ... not. It’s obvious that you don’t understand mysticism as practiced in Christianity; I’ve already provided a working definition of Christian mysticism — you can go directly to the resource book yourself. It’s further obvious that whatever “resources” you got your information from don’t understand it either.

If you don’t want to learn about what you “oppose,” that’s your business, but when you go spouting untruths against what is a very deep, very helpful, very legitimate practice that Christians have practiced since the beginning, you’re going to get some blowback from me.

I am sorry hand waiving does not cut it with me as does you quoting you saying because you say so therefore it must be true. Nothing personal. We will agree to disagree as I believe only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it. I believe the Roman Catholic Church tries to justify the occult practices of mysticism as you are doing right now with the occult teachings of Shamanism that are not biblical. I believe this is just the same as the Roman Catholic Church tries to justify many other pagan practices that are not biblical most of which lead their people away from God and his Word IMO.
 
Last edited:

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
And many more burned as witches.

The Church used the term witch as justification for getting rid of a lot of women, particularly ‘influencers’ of various kinds, herbalists with knowledge of contraception, village wise women... It’s the same process used by any invading force - take out the ones capable of organising resistance on the ground.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I am sorry hand waiving does not cut it with me as does you quoting you saying because you say so therefore it must be true. Nothing personal. We will agree to disagree as I believe only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it. I believe the Roman Catholic Church tries to justify the occult practices of mysticism as you are doing right now with the occult teachings of Shamanism that are not biblical. I believe this is just the same as the Roman Catholic Church tries to justify many other pagan practices that are not biblical most of which lead their people away from God and his Word IMO.
Uh, you do understand that the Church was around before the Bible, and that the Bible is a product of the church, yes?
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Uh, you do understand that the Church was around before the Bible, and that the Bible is a product of the church, yes?

No I do not believe that is correct. The Bible in the days of JESUS and the Apostles was the Old testament scriptures. Everything we have in the new testament scriptures is simply a fulfillment of the old testament scriptures that both point to JESUS as the Messiah and Gods plan of salvation for mankind. The old and the new testament scriptures (teachings of JESUS and the Apostles) are the two great witnesses that make up the written Word of God. I believe the Church according to the scriptures are simply all those who believe and follow God's Word. Those who do not believe and follow God's Word are not God's Church according to the scriptures *JOHN 10:26-27; MATTHEW 7:22-26.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Ok, thanks. I think best would be to remain in Biblical teaching. And to me, that doesn’t sound Biblical and that is why I think it is not good.
Since the very beginning, the Christian movement has never been about “bible only” — for the first 1500 years. Why would you limit Christian teaching and praxis to a parameter that’s much more narrow than what the church has historically been? Do you not understand that the Bible simply Does. Not. Address every single element and facet of the Faith?? do you not understand that if the proto-church was held to a sola scriptura stance — that is, “only what’s in the Bible” — that Jesus wouldn’t be part of Christian teaching?? That none of the Gospels would be part of Christian teaching — because when the church began, the gospels hadn’t been written yet??? The Beattitudes wouldn’t be part of the teaching. Evangelism wouldn’t be part of the teaching. Heaven wouldn’t be part of the teaching. All of this was either oral teaching or extra-biblical writing at that time. When you limit the church’s teaching to “the Bible only,” you subject all of Christianity to canonization — which, by the way, is a product of human teaching, itself.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No I do not believe that is correct. The Bible in the days of JESUS and the Apostles was the Old testament scriptures. Everything we have in the new testament scriptures is simply a fulfillment of the old testament scriptures that both point to JESUS as the Messiah and Gods plan of salvation for mankind. The old and the new testament scriptures (teachings of JESUS and the Apostles) are the two great witnesses that make up the written Word of God. I believe the Church according to the scriptures are simply all those who believe and follow God's Word. Those who do not believe and follow God's Word are not God's Church according to the scriptures *JOHN 10:26-27; MATTHEW 7:22-26.
Incorrect. If you take away all of the OT texts, Jesus doesn’t appear in the OT. When you adhere to a “bible only” standard, you effectively do away with the whole Christian movement.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Since the very beginning, the Christian movement has never been about “bible only” — for the first 1500 years. Why would you limit Christian teaching and praxis to a parameter that’s much more narrow than what the church has historically been? Do you not understand that the Bible simply Does. Not. Address every single element and facet of the Faith?? do you not understand that if the proto-church was held to a sola scriptura stance — that is, “only what’s in the Bible” — that Jesus wouldn’t be part of Christian teaching?? That none of the Gospels would be part of Christian teaching — because when the church began, the gospels hadn’t been written yet??? The Beattitudes wouldn’t be part of the teaching. Evangelism wouldn’t be part of the teaching. Heaven wouldn’t be part of the teaching. All of this was either oral teaching or extra-biblical writing at that time. When you limit the church’s teaching to “the Bible only,” you subject all of Christianity to canonization — which, by the way, is a product of human teaching, itself.

Nonsense. Since the very beginning God's people have always been about the Word only as it is only by faith in God's Word that we have God's Grace *EPHESIANS 2:8-9. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17 and without faith it is impossible to please God *HEBREWS 11:6 because whatsoever is not of faith is sin *ROMANS 14:23. Now if we only have salvation by faith in God's Word how can you have salvation without it? The only reason why "Sola scriptura" was brought up in the 1500-1600's was because they Church had departed the faith and those who were in it were trying to bring the church's attention back to the fact that they had departed the faith. A teaching that the true church of God has always had from the very beginning of time *HEBREWS 11.

Hope this helps
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Incorrect. If you take away all of the OT texts, Jesus doesn’t appear in the OT. When you adhere to a “bible only” standard, you effectively do away with the whole Christian movement.
I am sorry we will agree to disagree. I am sorry but you quoting you because you say so does not make it so. I believe as Peter who says we ought to obey God rather than man *ACTS 5:29.
 
Top