The distinction between mysticism of this type and evangelical Christianity, from the point of view which is now occupying our attention, is nevertheless clear. Evangelical Christianity interprets all religious experience by the normative revelation of God recorded for us in the Holy Scriptures, and guides, directs, and corrects it from these Scriptures, and thus molds it into harmony with what God in His revealed Word lays down as the normal Christian life.
The mystic, on the other hand, tends to substitute his religious experience for the objective revelation of God recorded in the written Word, as the source from which he derives his knowledge of God, or at least to subordinate the expressly revealed Word as the less direct and convincing source of knowledge of God to his own religious experience. The result is that the external revelation is relatively depressed in value, if not totally set aside
Since St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila were mentined here as "mystics", I have to say that the second paragraph in this post--apparently quoted from a link, does not present Christian mysticism in its true sense.
St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila,--and St. Therese, and St. Elizabeth of the Trinity, based their writings strictly on Scripture.
I realize this is tangental to the original thread topic, but if one is not familiar and conversant with the works of these Catholic "mystics", then what is said about them is not accurately understood or portrayed.
I think it's inmportant to make distinctions re:a faulty and generalized description of mysticism, as if were self-delusion or occultic in nature.
Again, that's something for different thread, but since it has come up and beeen defined from one source, I want to clarify that the source does not offer an accurate or more comprehensive understanding. Even the use of the words "tends to" and "relatively" give away that this is generalization.
Plausible distinctions, to me.
Thx.