Experiential vs. Intellectual Christianity

[disciple-ofjesus]

Spirit Compass: you have got me dead wrong and completely missed what I am saying. What you describe is a night and day difference from what I am talking about. BTW I don't prefer old pentecostal church settings...in fact I have somewhat of a built in distrust and aversion to them for reasons similar to what you described.

However, there have been times when I was growing up that the power of God moved so strongly that it overwhelmed everyone in the building. People who were not worshipping were weeping, people who were not weeping were probably out on the floor under the power of the Holy Spirit (who you could tangibly feel in the room) ...I have been to plenty of so called pentecostal churches that have tried their best to fake or manufacture that experience. (you see them on tv all the time) but I'm here to testify that the real thing does exist and that there is nothing else like it in this world.

AMEN!

 

[imperfectchristian]

Simon I think you are not understanding where I am coming from...one of the most wonderful times in my life was when I first read the Gospels for myself. The presence of God was so strong when I first began reading the New Testament on my own that it literally scared me. I could feel God in the room and I was afraid I was going to pass into some orher deminsion while sitting in my living room. (I'm not exagerrating)...it scared me so bad I was trembling and had to stop reading and go walk around the house.

At the same time there have been times where I read the New Testament and it felt like condemnation and only re-enforced the despair I was trying to find refuge from by reading it.

See the difference was not Bible or no Bible...that is not the point I am making...the difference is God's Spirit vs. no God's Spirit.

 

[ARBITER01]

Of course experiencing God outside of scripture is important, but there's all sorts of spirtual, emotional and religious experiences 'out there', and unless you are guided by His word it's easy to fall off the narrow path.

That's correct.

Just recently we had folks here trying to validate false sensational things as being from The Holy Spirit, when there was no mention of them in scripture. What our Christian forefathers taught us is certainly our anchor.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Scripture can be used to harm people. Scripture is a primary way God reveals Himself to us, but just because someone is reading and quoting Scripture and has a nice theological and contextual basis they are working from, doesn't automatically mean they are being led by the Spirit.

I have seen too much abuse with Scripture to trust someone trying to lead me by it just because they are quoting from it.

 

[ARBITER01]

Scripture can be used to harm people. Scripture is a primary way God reveals Himself to us, but just because someone is reading and quoting Scripture and has a nice theological and contextual basis they are working from, doesn't automatically mean they are being led by the Spirit.

I have seen too much abuse with Scripture to trust someone trying to lead me by it just because they are quoting from it.

That wasn't the point that Simon made. He was addressing scripture as a standard we use to guide us.

 

[disciple-ofjesus]

Scripture can be used to harm people. Scripture is a primary way God reveals Himself to us, but just because someone is reading and quoting Scripture and has a nice theological and contextual basis they are working from, doesn't automatically mean they are being led by the Spirit.

I have seen too much abuse with Scripture to trust someone trying to lead me by it just because they are quoting from it.

exactly. the ones that think they have all their T's crossed and I's dotted, can quote fore fathers, and talk the talk...well..doesn't make them more spiritual or better than others. Just means that they can talk.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Arbiter: Sure Scripture is the standard...but who's standard? You see there is this mentality that if we just know enough, are educated enough, have enough historical and contextual information that we can ensure that we are correct. I think that is a false assumption. The only certainty any of us have that we are correct in our interpretation is by following the leading of the Holy Spirit. I can't tell you the times that God has tried to lead me to do something, but because it didn't line up with "my" understanding at the time I didn't do it only to find out later that my undrstanding was wrong. I'm not saying rely solely on God's leading, but I am saying we would be wise not to put God's Spirit in the back seat of our theological wagons while our intellect rides shotgun.

 

[imperfectchristian]

exactly. the ones that think they have all their T's crossed and I's dotted, can quote fore fathers, and talk the talk...well..doesn't make them more spiritual or better than others. Just means that they can talk.

Great point! At the end of the day it is not going to matter how much I know or what I have accomplished, what will matter is...did I love my wife, did I take time out with my children to be with them, did I speak to the person everyone else was ignoring, did I help others when I saw them in need and I had what they needed, did I do it out of obligation or from a giving heart? Did I spend more time talking about love or more time giving, receiving and experiencing it?

I'm preaching at myself now.

 

[ARBITER01]

Arbiter: Sure Scripture is the standard...but who's standard? You see there is this mentality that if we just know enough, are educated enough, have enough historical and contextual information that we can ensure that we are correct. I think that is a false assumption. The only certainty any of us have that we are correct in our interpretation is by following the leading of the Holy Spirit. I can't tell you the times that God has tried to lead me to do something, but because it didn't line up with "my" understanding at the time I didn't do it only to find out later that my undrstanding was wrong. I'm not saying rely solely on God's leading, but I am saying we would be wise not to put God's Spirit in the back seat of our theological wagons while our intellect rides shotgun.

I don't think anyone suggested that our understanding of scripture be of our own interpretation.

And I would say to rely solely on The Holy Spirit's leading, especially when it comes to correct understanding of scripture passages. He will be the only one that correctly connects the dots for us when it comes to understanding symbolism's and such in the bible.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Looking back on this thread it might sound like I am being critical, but that is not where I am coming from. I am really speaking out my own convictions in this assembly of believers to hear what you guys have to say about it and appreciate all of the responses.

 

[Simon Peter]

Arbiter: Sure Scripture is the standard...but who's standard? You see there is this mentality that if we just know enough, are educated enough, have enough historical and contextual information that we can ensure that we are correct. I think that is a false assumption. The only certainty any of us have that we are correct in our interpretation is by following the leading of the Holy Spirit. I can't tell you the times that God has tried to lead me to do something, but because it didn't line up with "my" understanding at the time I didn't do it only to find out later that my undrstanding was wrong. I'm not saying rely solely on God's leading, but I am saying we would be wise not to put God's Spirit in the back seat of our theological wagons while our intellect rides shotgun.

Arbiter was right, that wasn't my point.

Of course scripture is subjective, but my point was that it is far less subjective than experience. Therefore experience must answer to scripture, not scripture to experience.

Too many preachers are now putting experience above scripture.

That was why some of us could easily see that Todd Bentley's ministry was a sham long before he was exposed; while others just looked at all the 'wonderful' experiences in Lakeland and just didn't understand why we didn't jump on the bandwagon.

Here's my earlier post on this thread:

Neither are certain, but the experiential is far less reliable than the intellectual. Feelings and emotions are far more subjective and easily manipulated. Our intellectual understanding of God and doctrine must guide us in experiencing Him, or we can be easily deceived.

peace,
Simon

 

[gratefulgrace]

You see GG I have heard this type of thing repeatedly and I have seen it repeatedly used to quench the move (in order to control people) of the Holy Spirit. When I was growing up it was old style holiness and the King James Version of the Bible. I'll never forget one night watching the pastor lay into a young teen after church for something today we wouldn't even notice much less consider a sin, and you could feel the presence of God being quenched. I don't think playing "Holy Spirit policeman" with one's interpretation of the Bible is the answer either.

There is something about when the Holy Spirit is really moving...you don't need outside guidance to know what you need to do or how to do it (unless a person is not paying attention to the Holy Spirit)

I am sorry to hear this but this isn't what I was refering to when I spoke of lining up experience with the Word of God. Obviously this guy wasn't lining up very well, if the Spirit was quenched. gg

 

[imperfectchristian]

In one sense I agree SP and yet another I don't. This is like a chicken or the egg question. The fundamental understanding of who God is and His heart's desire for me came not from Scripture but from experience...specifically the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Later when I began reading the Scriptures for myself I was captivated by this person Jesus. I began reading John and not only felt love for Him, but recognized Him because the Spirit testified of Him. It wasn't until I started listening to other people tell me who God was that I began to get confused and uncertain. Which one is superior? I don't look at it that way...they are unique.

I never cared for Bentley nor felt he was anointed. I do believe the atmosphere at lakeland probably was, though I never went. God does use people inspite of their weaknesses and misunderstandings about Him.

Ultimately I know that God is love because I experienced Him.

 

[gratefulgrace]

I think in any love relationship there are two sides. The contract i.e the words that promise love and caring and the actions that show the words to be really true. I think this is sort of what I am talking about. The actions must line up with the words for a true trusting relationship to develop and continue. Sometimes the actions get our attention first though.

 

[ARBITER01]

In one sense I agree SP and yet another I don't. This is like a chicken or the egg question. The fundamental understanding of who God is and His heart's desire for me came not from Scripture but from experience...specifically the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Later when I began reading the Scriptures for myself I was captivated by this person Jesus. I began reading John and not only felt love for Him, but recognized Him because the Spirit testified of Him. It wasn't until I started listening to other people tell me who God was that I began to get confused and uncertain. Which one is superior? I don't look at it that way...they are unique.

I never cared for Bentley nor felt he was anointed. I do believe the atmosphere at lakeland probably was, though I never went. God does use people inspite of their weaknesses and misunderstandings about Him.

Ultimately I know that God is love because I experienced Him.

Simon wasn't talking about your born again experience, he was talking about church experiences claiming to be by The Holy Spirit and how they must align with the written word of GOD for them to be true.

 

[imperfectchristian]

The way I look at it, intellect, context, history and accumulated learning can help us in more clearly understanding Scripture, but knowing and understanding God and our Father's heart comes from experiencing Him through His Spirit that He gave us and that He offers freely to all who desire to know Him.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Arbiter: but see that falls back on the subjective interpretation of Scripture. Church experience is almost always justified through some subjective understanding of Scripture. It is only if we truly know the God of Scripture through His Spirit that we can really distingush what is of Him and what is not.

Scripture with the Holy Spirit is powerful indeed. God can use it to change our lives and draw us ever closer to Him. Without the Holy Spirit though, people can and do use Scripture to where it can become confusing, irrelevant, harmful and even deadly.

 

[ARBITER01]

Arbiter: but see that falls back on the subjective interpretation of Scripture.

You mean it falls back on a "personal" interpretation of scripture.

And btw, I'm fully aware of how GOD's Spirit operates in the body of Christ.

 

[imperfectchristian]

You mean it falls back on a "personal" interpretation of scripture.

And btw, I'm fully aware of how GOD's Spirit operates in the body of Christ.

What's the difference?

Are you getting defensive? I wasn't making accusations, I was just making a statement of what I believe.

 

[imperfectchristian]

You mean it falls back on a "personal" interpretation of scripture.

And btw, I'm fully aware of how GOD's Spirit operates in the body of Christ.

Is there a difference?

I wasn't making accusations, just stating what I believe.