The Experience of Christ

[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.'"

[Cal]

I agree completely that specifics are often better that generalities. But generalities do serve a purpose. I don't see the sense in banning them.

Besides, in talking about the "stew" we lose track that the LCM was very specific about certain things and they still went off-track. They would talk about "loving the Lord," and "walking in the spirit," "following the new testament ministry," "being a testimony," "being absolute," "being in the Word," "being obedient to the heavenly vision."

In all these things, they had a proprietary meaning, rather than the mainstream meaning. Specificity didn't help them a bit with avoiding error. Because in the end it doesn't matter how specific your words are if you have a warped view of them in the first place.

So if I say, "experience Christ," that's a lot better than an LCMer saying "be obedient to the heavenly vision." Because my "Christ" is more legitimate that their "heavenly vision." They are more specific, but I'm more according to the truth. Or if I'm not, someone is.

[UntoHim]

Christian experience is rightly used when it helps to convince us that the events narrated in the New Testament actually did occur; but it can never enable us to be Christians whether the events occurred or not. It is a fair flower, and should be prized as a gift of God.
But cut it from its root in the blessed Book, and it soon withers away and dies.

J. Gresham Machen

What say you, forum?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim quoting Machen

Christian experience is rightly used when it helps to convince us that the events narrated in the New Testament actually did occur ...

What say you, forum?

Interesting bro UntoHim. So according to Machen experiencing Christ needs to be rightly used. And apparently that is to prove the New Testament true.

But if we are really experiencing Christ, the real Christ and a real experience, we don't really need to know the status of New Testament stories ... we've arrived BY and THRU Christ and have our own true story to tell ... perchance a new new testament.

I think that's what Igzy is trying to say.

What say you Igzy? and well, goes without saying, UntoHim?

[UntoHim]

Harold, you left out the best part of the quote:

It is a fair flower, and should be prized as a gift of God.
But cut it from its root in the blessed Book, and it soon withers away and dies.

What words of wisdom from a true man of God who put Christian experience in it's proper perspective, and in so few words!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, you left out the best part of the quote:

It is a fair flower, and should be prized as a gift of God.
But cut it from its root in the blessed Book, and it soon withers away and dies.

Because I don't agree with it.

It may be true for those with a love affair with the Bible ... that their fair flower withers and dies when they lose a root system mingled with fallen men ... where failure can only be expected.

But fair flowers rooted in God don't wither and die ; the God that was clearly before the blessed book ; the book that tells of Abraham, who was rooted to God, and not to any Bible whatsoever. Clearly it's best and wisest for fair flowers to be rooted where fallen men have not been the intermediary.

Ultimately, God is the only real root system for fair flowers.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting bro UntoHim. So according to Machen experiencing Christ needs to be rightly used. And apparently that is to prove the New Testament true.

But if we are really experiencing Christ, the real Christ and a real experience, we don't really need to know the status of New Testament stories ... we've arrived BY and THRU Christ and have our own true story to tell ... perchance a new new testament.

I think that's what Igzy is trying to say.

What say you Igzy? and well, goes without saying, UntoHim?

No, that wasn't it. Sorry.

We need to be triangulated Christians. We need experience, we need the Word and we need to check our fruit. Each balances the others.

Word knowledge tells us what kind of fruit we should have, and keeps us from going off the deep end with experience.

Fruit focuses our experience on a practical result, and keeps us humble about our word knowledge.

Experience sheds light on our word knowledge, and empowers us for fruit-bearing.

Lee talked only about two, experience (the Spirit) and the Word. But actually we need three: experience, the word and fruit.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

in the end it doesn't matter how specific your words are if you have a warped view of them in the first place.

Frame it. It is a classic statement!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree completely that specifics are often better that generalities. But generalities do serve a purpose. I don't see the sense in banning them.

Besides, in talking about the "stew" we lose track that the LCM was very specific about certain things and they still went off-track. They would talk about "loving the Lord," and "walking in the spirit," "following the new testament ministry," "being a testimony," "being absolute," "being in the Word," "being obedient to the heavenly vision."

In all these things, they had a proprietary meaning, rather than the mainstream meaning. Specificity didn't help them a bit with avoiding error. Because in the end it doesn't matter how specific your words are if you have a warped view of them in the first place.

So if I say, "experience Christ," that's a lot better than an LCMer saying "be obedient to the heavenly vision." Because my "Christ" is more legitimate that their "heavenly vision." They are more specific, but I'm more according to the truth. Or if I'm not, someone is.

I don't think we want to ban your generalities, but rather to accept them as provisional, as having subjective meaning that isn't necessarily transferable. The specifics of your experience are yours. I might not have the same subjective assessment of the same circumstances. That doesn't mean either of us is wrong or right. So we don't deny your experience, if you don't deny us the right to have a different response to the same experience.

And on that note I'd like to revisit your earlier question:

Originally Posted by Igzy

"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..

Suppose you went home and told your wife, "I really felt the Father's love today", or "I felt the presence of an angel near me when this happened", or "I felt the fellowship and guidance of the Holy Spirit" in the same specific circumstance. Now, who would deny you that? But at the same time you have your subjective response and I have mine. I don't think any response should be seen as a denial of any other.

Now, to fruits: I got hailed in the hallway yesterday at work, and it was a former colleague who'd stopped by to visit. Unfortunately when I heard someone calling my name, and turned, and saw her, I couldn't remember her name. Later, the Lord rebuked me by saying, "The reason you couldn't remember her name is that you never prayed for her." God loves her: who's praying for this person? I felt very convicted. Now I worked with her for 3 years and I'm sure I had many experiences of love, joy, and grace during that time. But I never prayed for my colleague. So how much fruits did I bear during that time? I dare not say none, but I dare not say very much, either. So if I don't dare to measure my fruits I don't really hang too much weight on my experiences, either. I forget what is behind and press on.

So the idea that it isn't wise to pay much attention to our experiences as something in and of themselves, while we are yet in the way, seems fitting and valid. Everything still has to be proved, of what sort it is. And that includes me. (Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not questioning my salvation or anyone else's, just that our string of "experiences" is still playing out, so don't judge anything or anyone before its time).

[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!