The Experience of Christ

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Know" in the biblical sense means personal knowledge. Look up the Greek. Personal knowledge without experience is a contradiction in terms. Therefore we need experience.

It's not that I don't like the question. I just don't like being told I didn't make a case when it's more likely either you didn't understand it or you didn't like it. I've noticed when you don't like the point someone is making you tend to accuse them of not having made it well. It's sort of your fall-back argument of choice. It's patronizing and it gets old.

Instead of accusing "you didn't make your case" why not just (occasionally) admit "I don't understand?" I admit often that I don't understand you. I don't understand half of what you write and I'm not too proud to admit it. A little humility goes a long way.

You have continued to argue for a construct that is not found in the Bible. And assuming you intend it as a catch-all for real things that are there, it fails to identify any of them. You have asserted that the word "know" means personal knowledge and therefore requires experience. But the experience that underpins the knowledge is also experience with the subject matter, not only some kind of "experience of Christ."

I have said that you have not established a reason that talking about "experiences of Christ" without definition is preferable to talking about the actual things that we say, do, learn, etc., that you might like to re-label as "experience of Christ." I am not saying that the statement is not true. Rather that skipping the details and rushing to "experience of Christ" makes the content of the claimed experience of uncertain value outside of the claim that it is "of Christ." And how often are we so certain that things we hear of are "of Christ" yet someone is claiming it to be so. We may not have the fantasy life of that guy over on the other forum who believes that Jesus is sitting beside him and telling him things that do not sync-up with the written Word.

You argue that I am just fighting because I do not understand. But you are defending an overlay that is not found as such in the Bible and preferring it as a vanilla statement about things over real discussion of real, concrete things that do not need a loftier label to be worth the discussion.

It is part of a system of redefinition of things so that the language of the group, the LCM, is out of touch with the rest of the Christians they want to pretend are only barely so. And we retain it . . . why? Because we got to liking it? Because we still feel good for saying it?

Your characterization in your next post that I "like being different an innovative" is just short of an ad hominem. It is not an attack. But it is not a constructive point on the argument, but a characterization of it suggesting that the characterization makes it of no value. I don't just look for innovative things. I am far from innovative. But I see what I see. And I speak about it. If you don't see it . . . well, that would mean that it is you that is not seeing. So rather than just saying it is true and real and meaningful and important, tell me why. Why is this kind of thing that we label experience of Christ that we cannot put a finger on and that is so generally described as "nothing in particular we are enjoying other than the fact that he is near and with us." I understand that. But note how often that is spoken of in the scripture (almost never) and how often it is given a label like this (never).

Yet that is far from the whole of it because we don't hardly talk about any of the other kinds of experiences that are claimed to be included in there. And you don't bring them up as your examples. The reasons you supply for using the term are one of the primary reasons that I don't like the term. They are almost all about things that are outside of our normal life. They are elevations of a spiritual, inner-life and are not part of that secular life. It was a code-word for things that are not part of living ordinary life. So it underscores a spiritual-secular divide rather than unifying everything into the spiritual for the Christian.

That is why I do not like the term. And the reasons are not new or innovative. They are based in the realization of the problems that the LCM made be as extreme as possible so that we thought we were better.

And you are no longer there, but you are defending taking a part of that error with you. It is not "wrong" in an overt way. But it is incomplete and hides things. And even you primarily discuss it in terms of "spiritual" things, therefore help to make my point that if there is such a thing, we don't really acknowledge all that should be in there. Instead it is this nebulous spiritual experience.

And it goes along with a tendency to be dismissive of the "experiences" of other Christians because they are not as "high" in their experience. They don't seem to demonstrate to you something outward that you call joy or something like that. We really think we got superior knowledge from the LCM because we still are dismissive of things that are not like they were there.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have continued to argue for a construct that is not found in the Bible. And assuming you intend it as a catch-all for real things that are there, it fails to identify any of them. You have asserted that the word "know" means personal knowledge and therefore requires experience. But the experience that underpins the knowledge is also experience with the subject matter, not only some kind of "experience of Christ."

"Experience of Christ" is a generalization. But it is an accurate one. There is nothing wrong with using the term that you have demonstrated. You've given theoretical reasons for not using it, but nothing from experience that is conclusive. Yes, the LCM had a bad connotation for it sometimes. That's not enough reason to throw it out.

I've considered your argument and I disagree with it. And I think most people would. I've never heard anyone else arguing that saying we need to "experience Christ" is not a good thing. Since you are clearly in the tiny minority of people who would argue for such a thing the burden is on you to demonstrate its validity. And you can't do that by simply making a theoretical point. You have to show evidence, both that doing something produces negative results, and that not doing it produces better results. You haven't done that. You've just argued theory.

You have the tendency to put what someone says in the worst light possible and then attack that. That's one step from a straw man argument. I mean, if you are going to be stubborn I can be just as stubborn. If you are not going to at least acknowledge the usefulness of my ideas I certainly am not going to acknowledge yours, especially if I tend to disagree with them. I've already said I can see your point in theory. I just have not been shown that it actually produces the negative results you tie to it. You've provided no evidence that speaking of "experiencing Christ" has directly led to anyone being led astray from the truth. Nor have you provided evidence that only speaking of specific experiences produces better results. You just speculated it does.

How has holding this belief improved your relationship with God and your living out of the fruits of the Spirit? That's the bottom line. Since you are in the minority on this you need to tell us how it's made you a better Christian, because frankly I don't see how it has. We can all argue for things. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have continued to argue for a construct that is not found in the Bible.

No, I have not. Do you wish to continue this standoff? Or shall we agree to disagree?