The Experience of Christ

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

No one said that there is no experience. But the experience is not simply "experience of Christ" unless you have redefined all experience for the Christian as being experience of Christ. And if that is what you are doing, then it works. And is simultaneously almost meaningless because it is just a semi-private way of saying that living is an experience of Christ.

Isn't that what Paul meant when he said "For me to live is Christ?" Wasn't he saying in some sense that the experience of living to him was Christ?

I wouldn't redefine all Christian experience as solely an experience of Christ. That was Lee's extreme. Obviously there are other things we experience as well. But I would say that all legitimate Christian experience should, sooner rather that later, include the experience of Christ. I would say it is the most indispensable thing, "it" meaning having a personal relationship with him. Obviously other things are going on as well. But the essence of the thing is that Christ is present and real and being lived out. If not, then why do we need the Holy Spirit? God could stay in heaven and we could be on earth "obeying" him and all would be well. All this "spiritual" stuff that you dislike could be eliminated and we could just live a life like the Jews did with a Christian spin. So if God is not interested in the "spiritual" or the "inner life" at all, where does the Spirit come in?

Experience of Christ to me just means a real encounter with Christ. It means you are really in his presence and being led by his Spirit in a conscious way. It's very possible to be seemingly "obedient" and not have this in your life. "Dead religion" is observable possibility. It's also possible to claim to have all kinds of experiences and yet display no fruit in your life. I think we always need to be alert to whether we are living according to God's presence and whether we are producing the right fruit. A plane needs two wings. The Lord never just gives us one principle. It's always a balance of things. So be balanced. Don't take an extreme view either way. You don't have to invent a new theology of how the Bible doesn't support "experiencing" Christ to make your point. Like I said, when the Bible says "know" in many cases, such as "know him and the power of his resurrection," it's talking about personal knowledge. It's talking about a knowledge that comes from direct experience. So in many cases substituting "experience" for "know" is okay, and as I've demonstrated in an earlier post many accepted translations do just that. So the argument that the Bible does not support the experience of Christ walks on thin ice. The Bible doesn't support Lee's extreme view of it, but neither does it support your over-correction to it.