The Experience of Christ

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I've seen some take the logical conclusion that Mary is the Mother of God. Because Jesus is God incarnate and Mary is the mother of Jesus. Logical...

I don't understand how you can post day in, day out, with such confidence about a diversity of topics, and then when considering the most basic item of the faith, i.e. do we experience God according to the scripture, you lose all assurance of faith.

If the Bible repeatedly speaks to the contrary, as in the case of killing people in the service of God, or is silent completely, as is the case with Mother Mary, then we should hesitate in our false assurances, but this is not the case. OBW says we should not say "experience" because his Bible does not say it. Then what do we do with all the quotes Igzy provided from the various translations of the Bible?

Oh well, sometimes we are commanded to love the brothers without understanding them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't understand how you can post day in, day out, with such confidence about a diversity of topics, and then when considering the most basic item of the faith, i.e. do we experience God according to the scripture, you lose all assurance of faith.

The more I consider it, the more assurance I get that the talk about experiencing Christ is just spinning cobwebs. There were a lot of folk, back in the day, who said they experienced God according to scripture. They were a confident bunch: they said, "We have Moses." But they had nothing. They had feasts, they had new moons. They had sacrifices & prayers. And they had faith, all right, but it wasn't in God, but in their experiences.

The problem with the sentence "I experience Christ " is not in the "Christ" part, nor the "experience" part, but in the "I" part. We should know better by now. And if you say that you didn't claim the experience for yourself, just that the experience exists, I reply that if so it exists not for the talkers but the doers. Talk means naught. Those who experience aren't giving speeches about it. They know better. They don't trust themselves, and they have learned to look away from their experiences, both good and ill.. As soon as you talk of experiencing Christ you exclude yourself from it. You have spun a cobweb and crawled in, and built your house on shifting sands.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The more I consider it, the more assurance I get that the talk about experiencing Christ is just spinning cobwebs. There were a lot of folk, back in the day, who said they experienced God according to scripture. They were a confident bunch: they said, "We have Moses." But they had nothing. They had feasts, they had new moons. They had sacrifices & prayers. And they had faith, all right, but it wasn't in God, but in their experiences.

The problem with the sentence "I experience Christ " is not in the "Christ" part, nor the "experience" part, but in the "I" part. We should know better by now. And if you say that you didn't claim the experience for yourself, just that the experience exists, I reply that if so it exists not for the talkers but the doers. Talk means naught. Those who experience aren't giving speeches about it. They know better. They don't trust themselves, and they have learned to look away from their experiences, both good and ill.. As soon as you talk of experiencing Christ you exclude yourself from it. You have spun a cobweb and crawled in, and built your house on shifting sands.

I'll let you inform all the apostles about this. Perhaps you can set them all straight. As for me, I'm too confused, caught up in this forum spider cobweb since I thought the apostles talked about nothing but the experience of Christ in all their epistles.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll let you inform all the apostles about this. Perhaps you can set them all straight. As for me, I'm too confused, caught up in this forum spider cobweb since I thought the apostles talked about nothing but the experience of Christ in all their epistles.

Isn't this a different - experience of Christ - than the one practiced in the LRM? and maybe the one Igzy is speaking of? I'm finding it hard to put my finger on it ... this experiencing of Christ. It's a moving target. Like when a big spider shakes its web (-aron - thanks for that). No one, it seems, is speaking of the same thing.

I think in the end it's quite probable that we all have different pictures in our heads of what experiences of Christ is, and we can't help but to be talking about something different.

After all, any and all experiences of Christ are completely and utterly subjective. Plus, for me it's been a long time since I've had the local church style of experiencing Christ. These days one of my high peek experiences of Christ is sitting out back, in the dark, and "joining" the cosmos while looking into the milky way (weather permitting). I couldn't see that "glory of God" in the city. Surely that's a different experiencing of Christ than anything y'all are talking about.

And didn't Jesus more or less say that the "switch" is in the closet? It's dark in there. Jesus is found in the darkness. It could be said that, he's the light in that darkness. And that, I suppose, well defines a certain type of experiencing Christ.

Is that what we're all trying to talk about?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll let you inform all the apostles about this. Perhaps you can set them all straight.

Did Judas experience Christ? He walked with Him, talked with Him, even at one point kissed Him on the cheek.

In Luke 13:26 Jesus has them saying, "We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets"... but they got nothing. Don't trust your experiences. They are shifting sands.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Did Judas experience Christ? He walked with Him, talked with Him, even at one point kissed Him on the cheek.

Judas was like the personal valet of Jesus on earth. He had the money in order to arrange for accommodations for the entourage traveling with Jesus. Psalms say Judas was His close companion who lifted up his foot against Jesus. (41.9, 55.12-14)

The Bible never says, however, that Judas "experienced Christ" or that he even believed in the Christ. There is no proper experience of Christ without faith. (Heb 11.6 et al) Judas did indeed kiss Jesus on the cheek, and the soldiers later slapped Him on the cheek, and you are positing that these were also legitimate "experiences" of Christ?"

By your superior logic everyone throughout history that has ever claimed that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God" is also Satan himself, because that's what happened to Peter. And Jesus Himself said so!

You might want to rethink your position here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible never says, however, that Judas "experienced Christ" or that he even believed in the Christ. There is no proper experience of Christ without faith. (Heb 11.6 et al) Judas did indeed kiss Jesus on the cheek, and the soldiers later slapped Him on the cheek, and you are positing that these were also legitimate "experiences" of Christ?"

By your superior logic everyone throughout history that has ever claimed that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God" is also Satan himself, because that's what happened to Peter. And Jesus Himself said so!

You might want to rethink your position here.

The Bible also doesn't say that John or Peter "experienced Christ". So what have we added, here? When Jesus says, "Get away from me, all you workers of evil! I don't know you!" Isn't that also an experience of Christ, just as valid an "experience" as any other? No? We need qualifiers, then? So what did the "experience of Christ" add? Answer: nothing. Except to captivate our minds with their mental constructions. Don't stay there.

When John wrote "And he carried me away in Spirit, onto a great and high mountain, and he showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven, from God" was that an experience of Christ? When John tried to worship the angel as "Christ" the angel forbade it. So where was Christ, there? The "he" who carried John away in Spirit wasn't the Holy Spirit or Christ, but a ministering spirit. Is everything positive and good simply an experience of Christ? If so, well then fine. But it doesn't seem to me to be so, in the text. If the Bible could be simplified by our metric, then by all means it's well and good. But I don't see it. It's an oversimplification that ultimately needs so many exclusions and supporting clauses that it's really not worth the time it took to build it or hold it forth. Unless of course you're trying to sell books. That of course is different, then it's "cobweb city", baby! Rock on.

If you need "faith" to "experience Christ" then focus on the faith. If you look at the experience you'll sink just like Peter did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The Bible also doesn't say that John or Peter "experienced Christ". So what have we added, here? When Jesus says, "Get away from me, all you workers of evil! I don't know you!" Isn't that also an experience of Christ, just as valid an "experience" as any other? No? We need qualifiers, then? So what did the "experience of Christ" add? Answer: nothing. Except to captivate our minds with their mental constructions. Don't stay there.

When John wrote "And he carried me away in Spirit, onto a great and high mountain, and he showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven, from God" was that an experience of Christ? When John tried to worship the angel as "Christ" the angel forbade it. So where was Christ, there? The "he" who carried John away in Spirit wasn't the Holy Spirit or Christ, but a ministering spirit. Is everything positive and good simply an experience of Christ? If so, well then fine. But it doesn't seem to me to be so, in the text. If the Bible could be simplified by our metric, then by all means it's well and good. But I don't see it. It's an oversimplification that ultimately needs so many exclusions and supporting clauses that it's really not worth the time it took to build it or hold it forth. Unless of course you're trying to sell books. That of course is different, then it's "cobweb city", baby! Rock on.

If you need "faith" to "experience Christ" then focus on the faith. If you look at the experience you'll sink just like Peter did.

I don't think it is wise to "focus on faith" as you have suggested. People in the world often say "keep the faith," which has little meaning at all, basically "hang in there," or "cheer up, things will improve." I contend that faith without believing in Jesus Christ is no faith at all, at least not the faith of Abraham our father, and the faith of the Bible. Believing in Jesus, especially in our times of need, is by definition an experience of Christ. Real believing is a seeking experience of God as Jeremiah says, "you will seek Me and find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart."

You mention the "dangers" of not "experiencing" God in a real way. This is a very real danger for us. The book of Hebrews was written entirely with this thought in mind. The Hebrew believers had little genuine experience of Christ, and consequently were drifting back to their ancient Jewish traditions. They had drunk the milk of the word, but not eaten the solid food, not having their spiritual faculties exercised to discern the good from the worthless. Sure they had what they thought were numerous "experiences" with their traditions and celebrations, but they lacked faith. The Hebrews lacked Christ as experience. Did they have Christ? Yes, initially, apparently, but were seriously deficient in the full knowledge of His Son. They needed healthy spiritual exercise! (Now if that don't create a forum stir!)

The Lord said, "Get away from me, all you workers of evil! I don't know you!" Isn't it interesting that the omniscient Lord, the creator of all, would say this? How in the world could He not know them? Obviously what they did, how they served, etc. was not proper, not knowing His will. They may have had a lifetime of "experiences," yet little experience of Christ, in order to bring about His approvals.

[OBW]

Early on I suggested that my timing was bad to start a topic. And it was. I have had little time to keep up with much of anything.

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW says we should not say "experience" because his Bible does not say it.

I did not say that we should not say "experience." What I said is that we are prone to using the word "experience" about heavily fuzzy events, feelings, etc., that are "spiritual" in a world divided between spiritual and secular. In fact, other than Igzy's list, which I have not had time to more than read through, too many of the arguments for the generic have been about private time sensations of the presence of God or something like that.

I do not say those are false or that they are not experiences (although there is always the question as to how certain we are as to what they are since so many speak of these kinds of experiences and the result is something we could hardly call spiritually or scripturally sound — of course it is never what we do).

I suggest that rather than saying something generic that forces the interpretation that it was clearly of Christ —without argument or consideration — we talk about what was actually experienced. It is a little like declaring something to be biblical or not biblical. I can find the words in the Bible so it is biblical. But what do they mean? I can't find the words in the Bible, so it can't exist. (And before you rush to say that is exactly what I am doing, consider that my goal was not to crush things that are real, but to demystify something that is a catch-all. To stop and think what is actually being said when the term is used. To consider whether we actually engaged in something that was real, and when not sure, assumed it must be and gave it a label that squashed further consideration.

Not saying that this is all of the cases. But even when it is not, what more could be gained from the realization that Christ was working in me through the Spirit to actually be different during the day than just saying I had a real "experience of Christ." But as "real" and as much as that is "experiencing Christ," we don't use that term for those things. And we expect that such an experience will be followed by a desire to jump and shout. If that is the case, then the most mature Christians should be constantly unable to contain themselves because they would constantly be reminded that so many events of the day would have been different in their old life. The fact that they don't even have to think about being different in so many ways is the ongoing "experience of Christ" that does not come with a need for exuberance. Instead it comes with the realization that we are still short of the glory of God.

Yes, there are times for joyous shouting, or some kind of equivalent. But the presumption that there is a need for it to be so ongoing and yet so indescribable that you can only say that you had "an experience of Christ" makes me wonder. Was if real or was it uncertain and the label is required to force the understanding to be what we want it to be? Is it somewhat like saying "the Bible says" when we are not talking about what the actual words say, but rather what we take them to mean?

And a list of the occurrence of a word does not answer that question. And despite the number of instances noted, does not, in itself, make it a major construct of Christian life, nor force its meaning in the way that we so often insist. It is worthy of review, not push-back and incredulity on the part of some. Maybe even the list does not mean what we want it to mean.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I suggest that rather than saying something generic that forces the interpretation that it was clearly of Christ —without argument or consideration — we talk about what was actually experienced.

Instead of experiencing God's love, or peace, or redemption, we may try to "experience Christ", but without the specifics I don't see how the generic term adds anything helpful to the experience itself. If there's some meta-principle that fully casts all of our specific experiences into a new and bold relief, fine. But otherwise we risk being Jack Horners, sitting in the corner with our Christmas pies. We're happy with our newfound "plum" but really it's not connected to anything.

Originally Posted by OBW

what more could be gained from the realization that Christ was working in me through the Spirit to actually be different during the day than just saying I had a real "experience of Christ." But as "real" and as much as that is "experiencing Christ," we don't use that term for those things. And we expect that such an experience will be followed by a desire to jump and shout. If that is the case, then the most mature Christians should be constantly unable to contain themselves because they would constantly be reminded that so many events of the day would have been different in their old life. The fact that they don't even have to think about being different in so many ways is the ongoing "experience of Christ" that does not come with a need for exuberance. Instead it comes with the realization that we are still short of the glory of God.

Yes, there are times for joyous shouting, or some kind of equivalent. But the presumption that there is a need for it to be so ongoing and yet so indescribable that you can only say that you had "an experience of Christ" makes me wonder.

Going to the meetings and shouting "We are all experiencing Christ" was a kind of charismatic dodge... we got excited about something tenuously (at best) connected to the scriptural record. And our momentary excitement was taken as if it were the claimed experience itself. We thought that we were excited shouting "We are all experiencing Christ" because it was the experience (of Christ) itself, where in fact we were excited because we were jumping up and down, waving our arms, and shouting. We felt surely this was the generic and all-encompassing "Spirit" which was the generic, all-inclusive "Christ" which was therefore the "experience of Christ".

And we decried the "Denominations" for being in some holding pattern, waiting to go to heaven, while we were all experiencing and gaining Christ. But we were in our own holding pattern, with our rituals and habits and behaviors and concepts, which we thought were reality itself. Pray-reading, declaring, shouting, arm-waving, jumping, "prophesying" strings of buzz-words was taken as if it were the experience of Christ itself.

Now maybe I've already beaten this horse to death. So the LCM "experience of Christ" isn't ready to saddle up and ride. So what one is?

[aron]

Similarly, I remember going to an LC meeting and we all declared, "Let's gain Christ!" as if the declaration were somehow the experience itself. It was stirring, even exciting; it seemed right from the Bible. I was exercising my spirit on the local ground, what could be finer? And what could be wrong with that?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

John 3:36 (NLT). And all who believe in God's Son have eternal life. Those who don't obey the Son will never experience eternal life, but the wrath of God remains upon them."

”See life” or “see eternal life” in every other translation consulted. Is this seeing not experience? Surely it is experience. But again, seeing is experience, but experience is not seeing. Why insist on the unspecific.

Originally Posted by Igzy

John 8:32 (MSG). Then you will experience for yourselves the truth, and the truth will free you."

”Know,” not “experience.”

Originally Posted by Igzy

John 17:13 (MSG). Now I'm returning to you. I'm saying these things in the world's hearing So my people can experience My joy completed in them.

”Full measure.” “Fulfilled.” “My joy fulfilled in themselves.” Is this experience of Christ, or of joy? Or do we dismiss joy and declare it all to be Christ. While the latter sounds theologically superior, it really does not provide the meaning that “experiencing joy” does.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Acts 10:10 (CEB). He became hungry and wanted to eat. While others were preparing the meal, he had a visionary experience. Acts 10:10 CEB

”Fell into a trance.” This interesting construct of “had a visionary experience” is just way too much addition of “meaning” and removed from the truth that the words actually supplied convey.

I’m not allowing Peter’s retelling of the event to duplicate this false positive.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Romans 5:2 (GNT). He has brought us by faith into this experience of God's grace, in which we now live. And so we boast of the hope we have of sharing God's glory!

”Into this grace.” Nothing about experience, other than as supplied by the translator(s) of the one version.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Romans 12:2 (BBE). And let not your behaviour be like that of this world, but be changed and made new in mind, so that by experience you may have knowledge of the good and pleasing and complete purpose of God.

Again, “experience is not there except in the one translation. And even if we take this one, what “experience” is it talking about? Something that has to be supplied from somewhere outside the text because it is not there. And so you like the supplying of the word “experience” despite the fact that it is not there. And if it is, would it be to redirect you from what it was talking about, or to something else?

Originally Posted by Igzy

1 Corinthians 7:22 (MSG). I'm simply trying to point out that under your new Master you're going to experience a marvelous freedom you would never have dreamed of. On the other hand, if you were free when Christ called you, you'll experience a delightful "enslavement to God" you would never have dreamed of.

This rewrite is a little exuberant in its adding of words not found by so many other translators.

Originally Posted by Igzy

1 Corinthians 14:3 (MSG). But when you proclaim his truth in everyday speech, you're letting others in on the truth so that they can grow and be strong and experience his presence with you.

This is getting old. Yet another anomaly of translation that overflows with extra words that are not necessary to understand the text, and not necessarily relevant to it. If you want to suggest that this verse is something that should e considered as a reason to hang onto this nebulous term, then make the case. Don’t just quote verses that don’t actually say what you want them to say.

Originally Posted by Igzy

2 Corinthians 1:15 (ESV). Because I was sure of this, I wanted to come to you first, so that you might have a second experience of grace.

I will not contend that “receive a blessing” is not an “experience of grace.” But at the same time, “receive a blessing” is the way it is spoken and the two are not simply synonyms. A blessing is something specific. It is not “simply grace” (which Lee would have rephrased as “simply Christ”). It is a blessing.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Galatians 3:4 (CEB). Did you experience so much for nothing? I wonder if it really was for nothing.

”Suffer,” not “experience.” And even if you want to leave the word in there, it was personal experience. Their suffering was real and tangible because they had become believers. It was not some “experience of Christ” other than in parallel because Christ also suffered.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Galatians 6:6 (MSG). Be very sure now, you who have been trained to a self-sufficient maturity, that you enter into a generous common life with those who have trained you, sharing all the good things that you have and experience.

So to “share all good things” is now “have and experience”?

OK. I think I am done. Well over half-way through your list. And nothing.

You have clamored on as if you have been supplying all this evidence that the Bible supports the term and the meaning. But even when you finally do this, you just quote verses that do not actually say what you think they do. You even went to great lengths to find novel translations to assert that they were even there to consider.

The least you could do is try to then make a case for what it means that they might kinda, sorta, maybe mean what you want them to mean. But instead you go off complaining about how that OBW guy is so cold, callous, and doesn’t read your posts.

False.

I read them all. And your ranting has been found wanting. Besides, all of the ranting about me is a strawman to avoid the topic. Or muddy it. Until it got worse, I at least engaged the things you actually said, not your person. But your person is becoming hard to avoid. It is evident that you are neither reading my posts (maybe scanning the words) nor seriously engaging the topic.

Maybe it is better if you just sit this one out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Similarly, I remember going to an LC meeting and we all declared, "Let's gain Christ!" as if the declaration were somehow the experience itself. It was stirring, even exciting; it seemed right from the Bible. I was exercising my spirit on the local ground, what could be finer? And what could be wrong with that?

You mean rhetoric doesn't make it real? and saying "I'm experiencing Christ" doesn't make it so? Now we're back to the switch thing? And how do we know when experiencing Christ that it's actually Christ we're experiencing?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Going to the meetings and shouting "We are all experiencing Christ" was a kind of charismatic dodge... we got excited about something tenuously (at best) connected to the scriptural record. And our momentary excitement was taken as if it were the claimed experience itself. We thought that we were excited shouting "We are all experiencing Christ" because it was the experience (of Christ) itself, where in fact we were excited because we were jumping up and down, waving our arms, and shouting. We felt surely this was the generic and all-encompassing "Spirit" which was the generic, all-inclusive "Christ" which was therefore the "experience of Christ".

And we decried the "Denominations" for being in some holding pattern, waiting to go to heaven, while we were all experiencing and gaining Christ. But we were in our own holding pattern, with our rituals and habits and behaviors and concepts, which we thought were reality itself. Pray-reading, declaring, shouting, arm-waving, jumping, "prophesying" strings of buzz-words was taken as if it were the experience of Christ itself.

Now maybe I've already beaten this horse to death. So the LCM "experience of Christ" isn't ready to saddle up and ride. So what one is?

If the Spirit's work in us is experiencing Christ, it could happen anywhere. Whether in the so-called local churches, denominations, or non-denominations.
Some might have the concept "being inwardly disturbed" as negative. Really? When I read scripture or listen to a message that causes me to be "inwardly disturbed", that's an experience of Christ. That's the sensitivity of my inner man. When outward or inward circumstances aren't proper, the Word of God should make us "inwardly disturbed".

[Cal]

If someone says "I experienced Christ" and you ask "How?" and they can't be more specific, then you know they have a problem. But if someone says "I experienced Christ" and you say "How?" and they say "I enjoyed his loving presence." Or "I felt he wanted me to give money to a poor family." Then in that case, what's the real problem with the term?

I don't have a problem with the term and I'm not fuzzy. I know what I experience. But the shorthand just helps sometimes. It's no worse than if someone asks if you want to go get a hamburger and you say, "No, thanks. I just had dinner." You don't feel the need to say "I just had two tacos, beans and rice, guacamole, a large coke and sopapillas."

"The experience of Christ" is to me just a catch-all phrase. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as when pressed you can describe each experience in a more specific way.

Let me ask a question this way. If I come home and my wife says, "How was your day?" and I say, "Great! I had some amazing experiences of Christ today!" And she says, "Really! Tell me about it!" And I go on to tell her how I had a great quiet time where I felt the Lord speaking to me about Matthew 5:16. And how I was in the line in the grocery store and I felt the Lord nudging me to "let my light shine," and I asked a lady in line if I could pay for her groceries just to show her that Jesus loved her, and felt the Lord's strong confirmation of this act, and I drove home full of joy.

Now, is it okay to start that conversation by saying "I had some amazing experiences of Christ?" Or is that bad, too? Please enlighten me, all you experience of Christ Nazis.

[HERn]

There was a Lord's Table meeting at a certain local church after which all proclaimed that "Christ had been experienced". Immediately after the meeting one "small potato" brother leaned over and told another brother that he was sorry for not showing up to help mow the grass; while a so-called "leading" brother walked by and ignored the waving and calls of a grieving brother who was seeking reconciliation because he was told by the "leading" brother that "his humanity is deplorable, his kids were not in the church-life, and that he was 150 pounds over weight and could no longer sit on the good furniture". Of the two, which brother most likely "experienced Christ" at the meeting?


Matthew 7:15-20Amplified Bible (AMP)

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you dressed as sheep, but inside they are devouring wolves.(A)
16 You will [a]fully recognize them by their fruits. Do people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every healthy (sound) tree bears good fruit [[b]worthy of admiration], but the sickly (decaying, worthless) tree bears bad (worthless) fruit.
18 A good (healthy) tree cannot bear bad (worthless) fruit, nor can a bad (diseased) tree bear [c]excellent fruit [worthy of admiration].
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.
20 Therefore, you will [d]fully know them by their fruits.

Momma always said "pretty is as pretty does". LSM says if the leading brother was "in his spirit" it's all good.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by HERn

There was a Lord's Table meeting at a certain local church after which all proclaimed that "Christ had been experienced". Immediately after the meeting one "small potato" brother leaned over and told another brother that he was sorry for not showing up to help mow the grass; while a so-called "leading" brother walked by and ignored the waving and calls of a grieving brother who was seeking reconciliation because he was told by the "leading" brother that "his humanity is deplorable, his kids were not in the church-life, and that he was 150 pounds over weight and could no longer sit on the good furniture". Of the two, which brother most likely "experienced Christ" at the meeting?

Momma always said "pretty is as pretty does". LSM says if the leading brother was "in his spirit" it's all good.

Or are you someone who proclaims how right you are. Or do you have a modicum of humility. As per, Luke 18:13:

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'"

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

There was a Lord's Table meeting at a certain local church after which all proclaimed that "Christ had been experienced". Immediately after the meeting one "small potato" brother leaned over and told another brother that he was sorry for not showing up to help mow the grass; while a so-called "leading" brother walked by and ignored the waving and calls of a grieving brother who was seeking reconciliation because he was told by the "leading" brother that "his humanity is deplorable, his kids were not in the church-life, and that he was 150 pounds over weight and could no longer sit on the good furniture". Of the two, which brother most likely "experienced Christ" at the meeting?

I remember seeing the Congressional Record where they cited all the achievements of WL. How many thousands of local churches were "raised up", how many years of service, and people who were helped in their spiritual journeys. But they didn't mention defrauding the saints with Daystar and other schemes. They didn't mention that WL couldn't control his own family, whom he allowed to prey on the saints. They didn't mention that when his children were exposed, that WL "shot the messengers". They didn't mention that when he purged those who tried to hold him to minimal spiritual standards, of the "turmoils" and "rebellions" that followed forthwith. They didn't mention in all those "storms", how many families broke apart because some were "of Lee" and some couldn't stomach the hypocrisy any more. How many saints were discouraged and gave up on their Christian journeys because they were "wrecked" for the LC and when "the church ground" dissolved around them they had no clue how to go on with the Lord.

Philip Lin, in his book "Sacrifice and Sail On", said "how much WL loved the Lord"... but how much did he love the Lord revealed in scripture, versus the Lord that emerged from his hermeneutics? If that wasn't a different Christ it was at least a truncated one. And speaking of love, how much love did the "quarantined ones" and the "rebels", and for that matter those in "Christianity" get? If you say that you love God but don't love your neighbor, what love is that? And I should hold myself to the same standard. So I don't judge the quantity nor quality of my experiences, nor of yours. God will do that, in the end. I have my hands full already, believe me.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

There was a Lord's Table meeting at a certain local church after which all proclaimed that "Christ had been experienced". Immediately after the meeting one "small potato" brother leaned over and told another brother that he was sorry for not showing up to help mow the grass; while a so-called "leading" brother walked by and ignored the waving and calls of a grieving brother who was seeking reconciliation because he was told by the "leading" brother that "his humanity is deplorable, his kids were not in the church-life, and that he was 150 pounds over weight and could no longer sit on the good furniture". Of the two, which brother most likely "experienced Christ" at the meeting?

I guess what I'm saying is similar to what many are posting here. Whatever "experiencing Christ" means, if it's genuine then it should lead to a transformation that makes me more like Christ (whatever that means). In some way it's a similar story for all of us. Kind of like Saul who started out breathing murder to the Jewish followers of Christ, then somehow became beloved brother Paul who like Jesus laid down his life for others. If at the same time you're telling me how much you experience Christ you also lust for my money to start an RV business while your son is allegedly abusing sisters and you slander honest brothers that try to bring correction into your life don't be surprised if I call you a hypocrite and stop buying your books!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now, is it okay to start that conversation by saying "I had some amazing experiences of Christ?" Or is that bad, too? Please enlighten me, all you experience of Christ Nazis.

It doesn't seem bad, to me. Dave mentioned the idea of "outcome" and it is perhaps relevant here. Certainly it's been my incessant theme in this thread:

I just don't see how it is possible to say one is experiencing Christ when the primary outcome leads to rattling off the "correct" doctrines and beliefs. To me, it also doesn't mean that I get with a group of people who believe the exact same doctrines and we all experience Christ in the same way and have little toleration for other perspectives. If reading the Bible and praying leads to a change in positive outcomes in our outlook of our fellow human beings, world and other life then we have the makings of truly experiencing Christ from my perspective. There are only two commandments: love God and love our neighbor. I just don't see a lot of love coming out from those espousing that they are the true lovers of God who experience Christ. I am sure that "your" experience of Christ has changed you but what are the outcomes..

Suppose you had a great experience of Christ. Peace, joy, the sense of being forgiven, and loved, guidance, intervention, salvation in one of a myriads of ways. Wonderful. Now, is that part of a process of change, or today's "feel-good" moment? I admit I'm biased from my LC time because the "feel-good moments" of being sensorily stimulated by shouting, singing, pray-chant-reading (or whatever) was the stand-in for the experience of Christ. And what was the outcome?

I'd like to give my own example. Once I went to a church and they preached the gospel from the pulpit and I got saved. Now, there was an outcome. I believed, I confessed, I prayed. But that led to another process, the outcome of which is not definitively settled. I still have a journey.

I have much to be thankful for. All those good things are from the Father of lights. They are "experiences of my Father's love". Likewise I have many "experiences of Christ" (presumably). And I won't deny your experiences; whatever validity they have is known to the Father. If He says, "amen", then fine.

But my point remains, as well: "Forgetting what is behind me and stretching to what is before". And with that measuring stick all my "experiences of Christ" really don't matter. It's like the two sons, one of which said "I will" and the second refused. Then the first goes back to sleep and the second repents and goes out and obeys the Father's commands. Which one did the will of the Father (Matt 21:31)? The second son. But initially it looked like the first son had the right experience, of giving the "right" answer. But while we are yet in the way, we should be very wary of handling our experiences. There is no general "experience of Christ" which stands immutable. But there are experiences, tied to specifics. For me, I think of John's, "We were witnesses of that One's glory" (John 1:14). If that isn't an experience of Jesus Christ what is? Obviously John never forgot it and it was a referential touch-stone for him the rest of his life. I hope we all have those experiences.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

It doesn't seem bad, to me. Dave mentioned the idea of "outcome" and it is perhaps relevant here. Certainly it's been my incessant theme in this thread:

That's what I said. Look at the fruit. Is the fruit of the Spirit there? Whether you have the absolute correct doctrines or not, whether you are clear about whether we should say "experience Christ" or not, or whether you say it or not. The bottom line is the fruit.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If someone says "I experienced Christ" and you ask "How?" and they can't be more specific, then you know they have a problem. But if someone says "I experienced Christ" and you say "How?" and they say "I enjoyed his loving presence." Or "I felt he wanted me to give money to a poor family." Then in that case, what's the real problem with the term?

I don't have a problem with the term and I'm not fuzzy. ....etc....

"The experience of Christ" is to me just a catch-all phrase. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as when pressed you can describe each experience in a more specific way.

Let me ask a question this way. If I come home and my wife says, "How was your day?" and I say, "Great! I had some amazing experiences of Christ today!" And she says, "Really! Tell me about it!" And I go on to tell her how I had a great quiet time where I felt the Lord speaking to me about Matthew 5:16. And how I was in the line in the grocery store and I felt the Lord nudging me to "let my light shine," and I asked a lady in line if I could pay for her groceries just to show her that Jesus loved her, and felt the Lord's strong confirmation of this act, and I drove home full of joy.

Now, is it okay to start that conversation by saying "I had some amazing experiences of Christ?" Or is that bad, too? Please enlighten me, all you experience of Christ Nazis.

The phrase 'I had an experience of Christ' imho is strictly an LC phrase, coined by Nee or Lee. I have never, ever heard any believer outside of the LC realm use that phrase but most true believers do have an experience of Christ. However they express it like this: God spoke to me. God told me. I felt the Holy Spirit lead me. I felt His Presence. The Lord opened my eyes. OR more often than not, The "Anointing" of the Lord was all over me today, meaning the Power of the Holy Spirit was on them. I hear the charismatic churchers use this phrase a lot. And since that phrase is often used in the bible, I'm cool with it. Having done a study on the meaning of the Anointing, it is the biblical expression of 'having had an experience of Christ.

A couple of days ago, my friend's 16 yr old grandson told his grandma, my friend this: Grandma. I was feeling really sad today. And out of nowhere, Jesus went 'POOF' inside me and I became very happy. He really went POOF inside of me!! and I have been happy all day since then." Aww... he's really a sweet guy. Unchurched for the most part but reads his bible and prays a lot...truly loves the Lord. He has lots of 'experiences of Christ' and shares them with us all the time. He just doesn't use that catch all phrase. And neither do I. I assure you if I told my friends 'I had an experience of Christ today', they'd say ' a what????

scriptures on the anointing:
Leviticus 8:12
And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Isaiah 10:27
And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing.
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received from Him abideth in you, and ye have no need that any man teach you. But as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.

scriptures on 'the experience (of Christ)':

Genesis 30:27
And Laban said unto him, “I pray thee, if I have found favor in thine eyes, tarry; for I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.”

Philippians 3:10-11
I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death, I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death,

as an fyi....
some translations use the word 'experience' a lot more than others. NLT (New Living Translation) for one. NKJV uses the word 'experience' only a handful of times.

Shalom in Christ Jesus!

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

scriptures on 'the experience (of Christ)':

Genesis 30:27
And Laban said unto him, “I pray thee, if I have found favor in thine eyes, tarry; for I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.”

Philippians 3:10-11
I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death, I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death,

as an fyi....
some translations use the word 'experience' a lot more than others. NLT (New Living Translation) for one. NKJV uses the word 'experience' only a handful of times.

Shalom in Christ Jesus!

You can experience God. You can experience the Spirit of God. You can experience Christ. You can experience peace, and joy. You can experience heavenly visitations. You can experience eating a hamburger. You can experience a lot of things. But in the end, what you experience will be determined by God, and by God alone. And imho the people who claim a lot of experience here in the flesh are those with the least experience. Because they don't know how to be quiet. They want a parade, today, while the battle rages. And this is NOT a jab at anyone here on this forum! This is simply a principle. If you make a lot of fuss to be something, or have something, here on Earth, you are in a vulnerable position, and risk losing whatever you think you have. The battle rages on. Don't make a parade of your gifts. Use them wisely. Satan would love to get you off-balance.

There was a guy in the "Lakeland revival" in Florida named Todd Bentley. He was "anointed" with "gifts", at least he persuaded himself and many others. They made him an "apostle". Later he decided that he wanted a new wife, from among the congregants. He and one of the parishioners fell in love so he wanted to dump his current wife and start over with a new one. Now, maybe Bentley had some genuine experiences. I don't know. But somewhere along the way his experiences deluded him. And this is not only a peril for the Charismatic movement, with their emphasis on experience (and I lump the LC fully in that fold, even without the miracles and tongues) that jumping up and shouting and rolling one's eyes become the sufficient "works" or "fruits". In other words, God put His Spirit on me, and God's works and promises can't be wrong, so I am going on to glory! And your living becomes more and more incidental. You have the anointing, so you claim, and begin to feel invulnerable, and invariably suffer loss. And you hurt others who've put their trust in your claims.

I had experiences of anointing, and blessing, and I also had experiences like Peter where I went outside and wept in darkness. In our experiences we may sense apparent "gain", and also apparent "loss". But at the end of the day we soldier on; God will keep score. Believe me, God is paying attention! Don't focus on the score, on the sum of your experiences. Focus on God's Christ. He is the one who passed the test, and received everlasting glory. Forget about your teachings, your impressions of those teachings, or your organizational position, or lack thereof. God's Christ is shining before us. All of His experiences were fully tested and proved. Don't look at yourself; look at Him.