Book Club Questions for The Knowledge of the Holy

1.Tozer writes that "what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." Do you agree? Why would our mental picture of God be more revealing than, say, our behavior or our stated beliefs?

2.He argues that the church has not deliberately abandoned a high concept of God but has done so "little by little and without her knowledge." Can you think of examples — in worship music, sermons, or everyday Christian conversation — where God seems smaller or more manageable than the God of Scripture?

3.Tozer says that "low views of God destroy the gospel for all who hold them." That is a strong statement. What connection does he see between our theology (our doctrine of God) and the health of the gospel message?

1.Tozer argues that God is not only unknown but unknowable in His fullness — yet he also says we can truly know God. How does he hold these two things together without contradiction?

2.He uses the idea that any concept of God formed purely by the human mind will inevitably be an idol. What makes a mental image of God an idol, even if it is not a physical statue?

3.Tozer points to the mystics and the great theologians of the church who spoke of approaching God with awe and even holy silence. How does that posture compare to the way you typically approach your time with God in prayer or Bible reading?

1.Tozer defines a divine attribute as "something true about God" — something He has revealed about Himself, not something we have invented. Why is this distinction between revealed attributes and human projections so important?

2.He insists that the divine attributes are not parts of God but are identical with God's one undivided being. What does it mean that God does not merely possess love or holiness but that He *is* love and *is* holy? How does that differ from the way attributes work in creatures like us?

3.Tozer warns that isolating one attribute and ignoring others creates a distorted picture of God. Can you identify a common distortion — a church culture or personal habit of mind — that overemphasizes one attribute (say, love) at the expense of another (say, holiness)?

1.Tozer acknowledges that the Trinity is a mystery that surpasses human reason, yet he insists it is not irrational. What is the difference between something that is *above* reason and something that is *against* reason?

2.He argues that the Trinity is not a speculative philosophical idea but a truth revealed by God's self-disclosure in Scripture and in salvation history. How does the experience of salvation itself — being drawn to the Father through the Son by the Spirit — give us experiential access to trinitarian reality?

3.Tozer reflects on the eternal fellowship within the Godhead — Father, Son, and Spirit in infinite mutual love. How does this picture of God as an eternal community of love change the way you think about the origin of love, of relationship, of creation itself?

1.Tozer explains the concept of aseity — that God is self-existent, deriving His being from nothing outside Himself. How does this differ from everything else that exists, including angels, the universe, and human beings?

2.He writes that God said "I AM" — not "I was" or "I will be" — suggesting that God exists in an eternal present. What are the implications of this for how we think about God's relationship to time, change, and circumstance?

3.Tozer argues that because God is self-existent, He has no needs — He cannot be made richer or poorer by anything creatures do. How does this challenge common assumptions in Christian culture, such as the idea that God "needs" our praise or that He is somehow diminished when we sin?

1.Tozer distinguishes between God's self-existence (that He derives being from nothing outside Himself) and His self-sufficiency (that He needs nothing outside Himself to be perfectly complete). How do these two truths reinforce each other?

2.He reflects on the words of Paul in Athens: God is not served by human hands as though He needed anything. How does this verse challenge the way we sometimes talk about "giving back to God" or "doing things for God"?

3.Tozer is careful to say that God's self-sufficiency does not make creation meaningless or human relationship with God hollow. How does he explain why God creates and why our worship matters, if God needs neither?

1.Tozer explains that God does not experience time sequentially — past, present, and future — but dwells in an "eternal now." What does it mean that God sees all of history simultaneously rather than experiencing it as we do?

2.He suggests that time itself is a creature — something God made, not something in which God is trapped. How does this reframe your understanding of creation, of history, and of the "end of all things"?

3.Psalm 90, which Tozer references, was written by Moses — a man who experienced enormous change, loss, and transition over a long life. How does Moses's prayer ("from everlasting to everlasting, You are God") reflect a hard-won trust in divine eternity? What did Moses know from experience that gave weight to those words?

1.Tozer defines infinitude as God having no limits or boundaries of any kind — not in power, not in knowledge, not in time, not in space. How does this differ from saying that God is simply "very, very large" or "extremely powerful"?

2.He is careful to note that infinity is not simply a very large quantity but a different category entirely. What are the implications of this for how we talk about God — for instance, when we say He is "more" loving or powerful than anything we know?

3.Tozer connects God's infinitude to worship: we can never exhaust our exploration of God, which means genuine worship is inexhaustible. How has your own experience of worship reflected this — or been diminished by a too-small picture of who you are worshipping?

1.Tozer explains that God's immutability means He cannot change — not because He is rigid or inflexible, but because He is already perfect. What is the difference between the unchangeability of perfection and the unchangeability of stubbornness or limitation?

2.He distinguishes God's unchanging nature from the biblical language of God "relenting" or changing His mind (as in Genesis 6 or Jonah). How does Tozer reconcile these apparent tensions? Do you find his explanation satisfying?

3.We live in a world that celebrates adaptability and prizes change as progress. How does the immutability of God run counter to the spirit of the age — and why does Tozer think that is actually good news rather than bad?

1.Tozer defines omniscience as God knowing all things — past, present, and future — simultaneously and perfectly, without having to learn or discover anything. What distinguishes this from even the most brilliant human knowledge?

2.He insists that God's foreknowledge of our choices does not eliminate our freedom or responsibility. How does he navigate this difficult tension? Where do you find his argument most convincing or most incomplete?

3.Psalm 139 describes divine omniscience in deeply personal terms — God knows when I sit and when I rise, knows my words before I speak them. Does that level of being known feel comforting or exposing to you? Why?

1.Tozer defines omnipotence not as God being able to do literally anything (including contradictions like making a rock too heavy for Himself to lift) but as God being able to do everything consistent with His own perfect nature and will. Why is this clarification important?

2.He points out that God's power is not brute force but purposeful, wise, and good. How does this distinguish the God of the Bible from the gods of ancient mythology or the arbitrary power of fate?

3.Tozer argues that the omnipotence of God does not make prayer unnecessary but rather makes it meaningful — we are asking the only One who has the power to actually help. How has your own prayer life been shaped by what you really believe about God's power?

1.Tozer carefully distinguishes omnipresence from pantheism — the idea that God and the universe are the same thing. How is God's presence *in* all things different from God being *the same as* all things?

2.He reflects on the strange duality of God's omnipresence: it is both a comfort for the believer and a solemnity for everyone. How do you feel God's everywhere-presence differently in different circumstances — in joy, in temptation, in grief?

3.Tozer draws on the mystic tradition's idea of "practicing the presence of God" — the discipline of living with continuous awareness that God is here. What would it practically look like for you to cultivate that awareness in the ordinary moments of your day?

1.Tozer defines God's faithfulness as the quality by which He always acts consistently with His own nature and always fulfills His commitments. How does this make His faithfulness not merely a promise He keeps but an expression of who He is?

2.He argues that God's faithfulness flows from and is grounded in His immutability — because God does not change, He cannot be unfaithful. How do these two attributes reinforce each other?

3.Lamentations 3 is written in the middle of the worst catastrophe in Israel's history — the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet right in the center of that anguish, the writer pauses to say "His mercies are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness." How is it possible to confess God's faithfulness in the middle of apparent abandonment?

1.Tozer defines God's goodness as the essential quality of His moral excellence — not merely that God does good things but that He is the standard of goodness itself. What changes when you think of God not as conforming to some external standard of goodness but as being that standard?

2.He argues that because God is good, everything He does is good — even when it does not appear so from our limited vantage point. How does this help you engage with suffering or disappointment without accusing God of wrongdoing?

3.Tozer says that the goodness of God is something we can "taste" — referring to Psalm 34:8's invitation to "taste and see that the Lord is good." When have you most directly tasted God's goodness? What made that experience feel like a taste rather than just an idea?

1.Tozer defines justice as the equity of God — His treating all things rightly according to their true nature and moral reality. How does this make God's justice an expression of His goodness rather than its opposite?

2.He argues that a God without justice would not actually be good — He would be morally indifferent. Why does genuine love require justice? What would a universe of pure mercy with no justice look like?

3.Tozer writes that God's justice means He will eventually make right everything that is wrong. How does that conviction shape your response to injustice in the world — to corruption, oppression, violence that seems to go unpunished?

1.Tozer defines mercy as God's goodness confronting human guilt and wretchedness. How does this distinguish mercy from mere niceness or leniency? What does mercy require of the one who shows it?

2.He argues that mercy and justice are not opposites that must be balanced against each other but expressions of the same holy character. How does the cross show them working together rather than in tension?

3.Exodus 34 contains one of the most concentrated descriptions of God's character in all of Scripture — "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness." God spoke these words to Moses after the golden calf disaster. Why does it matter that God revealed His mercy in response to Israel's worst failure?

1.Tozer draws a careful distinction between mercy and grace: mercy withholds deserved punishment; grace bestows undeserved blessing. In your own experience, which of these feels more difficult to fully receive and believe?

2.He insists that grace is not just God's attitude but His active movement toward unworthy people — that it is always grace that initiates, seeks, and enables. How does this challenge any notion that we contributed something to our own salvation?

3.Tozer reflects on the phrase "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Romans 5:20) and immediately addresses the obvious concern: does this mean sin doesn't matter? How does he handle this, and how would you explain to a skeptic why abounding grace does not make sin irrelevant?

1.Tozer warns that "God is love" is often sentimentalized — reduced to a kind of cosmic niceness that tolerates everything and demands nothing. How does he argue that God's love, properly understood, is both warmer and more demanding than the sentimental version?

2.He insists that love is not one attribute among others for God but is what God is in His entire being. Yet he also insists that God's love is perfectly consistent with His holiness and justice. How do those truths hold together without either softening love or softening holiness?

3.Tozer reflects on the paradox that God loves us despite knowing us completely. Most human love is at least partly based on what we find attractive or admirable. What does it mean that God's love for us precedes and is not caused by anything good in us?

1.Tozer says that holiness is not just one attribute of God among others but is, in a sense, the attribute that describes all His other attributes. What does he mean? How does it make a difference to say that God is not just powerful but *holy* in His power, not just loving but *holy* in His love?

2.He describes holiness as a quality of God that makes Him utterly unlike His creatures — a "wholly otherness" that is not merely moral but ontological (a difference in kind, not just in degree). How does this understanding protect against the tendency to remake God in our own image?

3.Isaiah's response to God's holiness was immediate moral collapse — "Woe is me! I am undone!" When did you last feel something like that: not guilt about a specific sin but a deep, comprehensive sense of your own unworthiness before God? What prompted it?

1.Tozer defines God's sovereignty as His absolute, universal rulership over all things — that nothing happens apart from His will, either by His active decree or His permission. What distinction does he draw between what God ordains and what God permits, and why does the distinction matter?

2.He argues that a God who is not sovereign is not truly God — that sovereignty is inseparable from the very concept of deity. Do you agree? What happens to prayer, trust, and hope if God's authority is in some way limited by forces outside Himself?

3.Tozer is aware that sovereignty raises hard questions about human freedom and evil. He does not claim to fully resolve the tension. How does he frame the mystery, and how do you personally navigate it?

1.Tozer describes the recovery of a worthy concept of God as an "open secret" — something available to all but known by few. What makes it a secret? And what makes it open?

2.He argues that knowing God truly requires not just intellectual engagement but moral submission — a willingness to be changed by what we discover. Why would someone resist genuinely knowing God, even while claiming to study Him?

3.Tozer is deeply influenced by the mystical tradition — writers like Thomas à Kempis, Julian of Norwich, and the anonymous author of *The Cloud of Unknowing* — who insisted that knowledge of God is given through love and surrender, not just through study. How does that tradition complement or challenge your own approach to theology and Bible reading?

1.Tozer argues that true knowledge of God is not merely rational but spiritual — it requires the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. What is the difference between understanding theological statements about God and actually knowing God through the Spirit's ministry?

2.He reflects on 1 Corinthians 2, where Paul says that the Spirit searches the deep things of God and reveals them to believers. What does this suggest about the appropriate posture for studying theology — including a book like *The Knowledge of the Holy*?

3.Tozer was deeply concerned about evangelical Christianity becoming intellectually rigorous but spiritually dry — orthodoxy without life. Do you recognize this tendency in yourself or in your church community?

1.Tozer opens his book with the church's loss of majesty and closes with a call to its recovery. Looking back across the entire book, what does "majesty" mean to him, and how has your understanding of that word deepened or changed?

2.He argues that when we see God as He truly is, worship becomes not an obligation but an irresistible response. Is worship currently irresistible for you, or does it more often feel like duty? What do you think accounts for the difference?

3.Tozer writes that we must not merely know about God's attributes but must respond to each of them — justice calls for reverence, mercy calls for gratitude, love calls for love. Which attribute from this book has most called forth a response in you, and what has that response looked like?

1.Tozer opens the book with the claim that "what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." Having completed the book, how has your honest, functional picture of God changed? What old images or assumptions have been enlarged, corrected, or replaced?

2.Which chapter or attribute struck you most powerfully — either because it was new to you, or because it spoke directly into something you were facing? What made it land the way it did?

3.Tozer's diagnosis is that the church has lost the concept of God's majesty and has substituted something "so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men." Do you agree with his diagnosis? Where do you see it most clearly in contemporary Christian culture — and where do you see signs of the recovery he hoped for?