The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Second thoughts on Tozer's theology

Sorry, my friend, but I really think you are fabricating a criticism of something which simply isn't to be found in that particular article. Tozer nowhere even hints that anyone can be saved apart from the Gospel. He nowhere even intimates that salvation is to be found in the natural revelation. What he is saying is that the natural revelation does speak to all of mankind, of which Paul affirms in Rom 1. That which can be seen of God is clearly seen in the things which are made and likewise God has testified to His eternal deity and Godhead within them. Thus all men are held guilty before God for they KNOW that He is and that they are accountable to Him yet they exchange that truth for a lie and worship the creation/creature rather than the Creator Himself.

Now, as most of us will agree, Tozer did fall victim to Mysticism, not unlike many others of his day. And it is also agreed that his theology is wanting; i.e., he was an Arminian. But what he cannot be found guilty of, at least in that specific article is promoting a different "ordo salutis" by introducing salvation via natural revelation.

I can't help but get the impression that you are on some kind of quest to destroy A.W. Tozer, even though at times you admit that his writings do contain some truth. What I'm calling for here is fairness. If Tozer is guilty of creating his own "ordo salutis", even distant from the expected Arminian error he embraced, it isn't to be found in that article. It simply isn't fair to "eisogete" the error you claim he is guilty within that piece.

Bottom line . . . your claim lacks cogency, IMHO.

In His Grace,