Seeking God but failing miserably time and time again

[aiki]

Just hearing it and that was it? You didn't have doubts? You didn't ask questions? You didn't take some time aside to investigate? How old were you when this conversion happened?

I was eight. The questions, and doubts, and searching came later.

That's a good question. I can't prove in a "mathematical sense" that there will never be a purely naturalist explanation for the experiences that people report, but there are certain spiritual experiences that people have reported that I've shared with psychologists/neuroscientists or people who study the human mind in general, and typically they have no clue.

Dr. John Lennox speaks often in his apologetic lectures about the semiotics of writing. He points out that an examination of the chemistry of the ink of the letters on the page of a book, or of the substance of the pages themselves, cannot bring you to an understanding of the semiotics - the meaning - of the symbols, the words, that have been written. So, too, the experiences we have of God. Examining these experiences from a purely psychological perspective, as mere actions of the brain, just neurological events, cannot impart to you the supernatural meaning of them.

Lawrence Krauss loves to assert that being able to explain the mechanics of the universe answers all the questions that are worth answering. But Lennox observes that this is a sort of Begging the Question, assuming what is valuable as a question rather than establishing from reason what questions are valuable. Krauss's materialistic thinking dismisses out-of-hand questions of higher meaning. But his willingness to do so in no way obliges others to follow suit (though, he seems to think it does).

All this to say, an understanding of the supernatural cannot be derived (at least, not fully) from scrutiny of the natural.

Other experiences which have no psychological explanation, as far as I am aware, are different manifestations of the baptism of the Holy Spirit: some people feel fire, electricity, something that overwhelms them, some people report liquid love, others report a warm liquid anointing (like honey or oil) poured over their heads and slowly going down, accompanied by love, joy, peace. There are other experiences such as being "drunk in the Spirit" and being "slain in the Spirit" which are not fully understood by psychology as far as I know.

All of what you've described here falls under the sensual pursuit of God. None of these things are described in the NT, nor are they urged upon believers as common Christian practices. It is the human desire to make God material, to bring Him down to the level of the physical reality in which we commonly exist, that induces people to the obscene behaviours that you've described. People want to "feel God," to experience Him as a physical sensation and/or strong emotion rather than deal with Him as the Spirit-Being that He is. The result is a grotesque, pagan-like and highly fleshly set of manufactured "manifestations" of God.

Now, the question is: is this supernatural component from the "good side" or from the "bad side"? To answer that, I would apply the same tactic as you, I would look at the fruit of that person's life. If that person appears to be showing fruit of holiness, that would increase my confidence in that the experience was genuine and from the good side. Otherwise, I would rather remain skeptical. So I agree that discernment is key.

We are not left to decide on the basis of what is in evidence to us from the removed vantage point we have of another's life. God's word nowhere teaches Christians to engage in being drunk in the Spirit, or to have "soaking sessions," or to be "slain in the Spirit." The only people in the NT who were thrown to the ground and convulsed were those possessed of demons. None of the writers of the NT described practices like "toking the Spirit," or experiences of tingles, or hot oil being poured down their bodies, or of "fire" touching them. In Scripture, such "experiences" are utterly foreign to the Early Church. So, I am not left to guess if these things are of God on the basis of what else I might see in a believer's life. The standard for Christian belief and practice isn't the believer but God's word. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

That said, even if people are having demonic experiences, that shows you that demonic counterfeits exist. And if demonic counterfeits exist, genuine experiences from God also exist, because you cannot have counterfeits without the real deal also. So, indirectly it still works as evidence for genuine God-given experiences.

Again, I haven't denied that God acts - on rare occasions - in surprising supernatural ways. The Bible describes a number of such events. But though they seem to happen at every turn in Scripture, the reality is that often centuries passed between these events. And then, too, there is the matter of making a description a prescription. The mere description of an event in the Bible does not make it necessarily prescriptive for the reader. We don't assume that because Moses had a burning bush experience that we must all therefore have the same. This is to make the description of what happened to Moses prescriptive, which it isn't. Modern Christians do this a lot with the Bible, assuming that because certain supernatural experiences people had are described in the Bible, they are, therefore, things believers ought to pursue as experiences, too.

I've noticed, though, that the "Spirit manifestations" modern believers thrill over are, when compared to Scripture, very tepid, weak, paltry things. In Scripture, when God showed up, He didn't resort to silly "manifestations" of the sort believer's chase after today. He burned cities to the ground; He flooded the earth; His presence in the temple knocked down and blinded the priests within it; He clouded Mount Sinai, issuing thunder and lightning, as He met with Moses; He opened the ground, swallowing the wicked; He fed the entire Israelite nation daily with manna, and so on. Today's "manifestations of God" are also typically so subjective that it is impossible to objectively verify anything about them. We must take it entirely on faith that a person who is feeling "warm oozies" is actually feeling them and that such feelings are provoked by the Spirit. The credulity of those engaging in these "I feel something!" experiences is horrible to observe. All someone has to say is, "It's the Spirit!" and everybody nods their heads in agreement, no matter how bizarre and ugly the "manifestation" is. This sort of stuff is not of God. At all.

Scripture teaches us a very different way of walking with God. See my first post to this thread.

 

[angelsaroundme]

When you say you don't know God from personal experience, are you saying you have never felt God? The Spirit has never moved you? You have never seen God in Creation?

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." - Romans 1:20

 

[TruthSeek3r]

I was eight. The questions, and doubts, and searching came later.

Was there a point in which you (almost) lost your faith due to doubt? How long did that phase last? How did you regain your faith back?

All this to say, an understanding of the supernatural cannot be derived (at least, not fully) from scrutiny of the natural.

Correct, which would explain why I consistently see psychologists/neuroscientists failing to find a solid explanation for the different spiritual experiences people report in religious settings. I remember a back-and-forth discussion I had with a well-educated psychologist some time ago, in which he was doing his best to find candidate explanations for dramatic manifestations of shaking, trembling, convulsing and similar in Charismatic circles (which those who reject them typically attribute to a "strange fire", i.e., demonic activity). Of course, a psychologist with a materialist worldview cannot appeal to the demonic as an explanation, so he's forced to think of other options. The best explanation he could come up with is that people are simply faking it, due to peer-pressure or the pursuit of attention, which is utterly false if you have heard enough first-hand accounts from people who have actually experienced these things. Not everyone is faking it. There are people who are truly having these experiences, and psychologists have no clue about what's truly going on.

All of what you've described here falls under the sensual pursuit of God. None of these things are described in the NT, nor are they urged upon believers as common Christian practices. It is the human desire to make God material, to bring Him down to the level of the physical reality in which we commonly exist, that induces people to the obscene behaviours that you've described. People want to "feel God," to experience Him as a physical sensation and/or strong emotion rather than deal with Him as the Spirit-Being that He is. The result is a grotesque, pagan-like and highly fleshly set of manufactured "manifestations" of God.

You can view it that way and that's totally fine and I respect that view, and you have respectable reasons to see it that way. No problem. The point I was trying to get across is that, regardless of whether one views these manifestations as Godly or demonic, these manifestations can be considered evidence of the supernatural. It doesn't matter if you believe they come from God or Satan, in either case it would still count as supernatural. And the fact that psychologists cannot find proper explanations for these manifestations is consistent with that interpretation.

We are not left to decide on the basis of what is in evidence to us from the removed vantage point we have of another's life. God's word nowhere teaches Christians to engage in being drunk in the Spirit, or to have "soaking sessions," or to be "slain in the Spirit."

Just as scriptural descriptions of supernatural experiences are not prescriptive (as you very correctly indicate in a subsequent paragraph), the same applies to scriptural silence. The absence of description is not prescriptive either. The fact that the Bible is silent about a certain topic does not logically entail that there is nothing possible in that topic. The Bible says nothing about quantum mechanics, general relativity, calculus, computer science, electrical engineering, particle accelerators and a million other things. And the same applies to the supernatural and the myriads of ways in which the supernatural interacts with the natural and manifests in the natural. This is stated quite clearly by John 21:25:

25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.​

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 seconds this idea:

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.​

The takeway: there are tons of mysteries, miracles and supernatural experiences that the Bible is silent about. You cannot use scriptural silence in a prescriptive manner, just like you cannot use use scriptural descriptions in a prescriptive manner either. Each experience has to be assessed and judged on a case-by-case basis.

The only people in the NT who were thrown to the ground and convulsed were those possessed of demons.

I agree with this, but this is a description. You cannot use this in a prescriptive manner.

None of the writers of the NT described practices like "toking the Spirit," or experiences of tingles, or hot oil being poured down their bodies, or of "fire" touching them.

Correct. But again, scriptural silence is not prescriptive either.

In Scripture, such "experiences" are utterly foreign to the Early Church.

The Bible is far from exhaustive when it comes to studying the Early Church. In addition to the fact that the Bible itself acknowledges that many miracles and extraordinary events have not been recorded due to the overwhelming amount of pages such an endeavor would require (see John 21:25 quoted above), there is also the fact that the Early Church also produced lots of extra-biblical writings. Any responsible claim about the Early Church would need to take into account an exhaustive inspection of all the extra-biblical writings produced by the Early Church as well.

So, I am not left to guess if these things are of God on the basis of what else I might see in a believer's life. The standard for Christian belief and practice isn't the believer but God's word. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I agree, but that passage from 2 Timothy never says "nothing is possible beyond what is explicitly stated in the closed canon". There is not a single passage in the Scriptures that says "if you ever encounter a phenomenon which is not explicitly described in the Bible, then that phenomenon necessarily comes from Satan", which is obviously false. Most of Jesus' miracles were not explicitly described in the Bible. Does that mean they came from Satan? Obviously not.

The Biblical way to judge whether things come from God is by looking at the fruit (Matthew 7:15-20), by testing the spirits (1 John 4:2) and by the gift of discerning of spirits (1 Corinthians 12:10).

Again, I haven't denied that God acts - on rare occasions - in surprising supernatural ways. The Bible describes a number of such events. But though they seem to happen at every turn in Scripture, the reality is that often centuries passed between these events.

Again, silence is not (necessarily) prescriptive. The fact that the Bible is silent about a period of time does not necessarily entail that nothing happened during that period of time. For silence to be prescriptive in such a manner, the Bible would need to explicitly say so. You would need to find a passage that explicitly asserts that "nothing happened from year X to year Y".

And then, too, there is the matter of making a description a prescription. The mere description of an event in the Bible does not make it necessarily prescriptive for the reader.

I agree 100% on this.

Modern Christians do this a lot with the Bible, assuming that because certain supernatural experiences people had are described in the Bible, they are, therefore, things believers ought to pursue as experiences, too.

We agree on this. However, there is nothing preventing Christians from pursuing a closer walk with the Lord and becoming vessels through which God could manifest mightily, provided that they have been perfected in love first (yes, I'm aware of 1 Corinthians 13, no need to quote it back to me).

Today's "manifestations of God" are also typically so subjective that it is impossible to objectively verify anything about them. We must take it entirely on faith that a person who is feeling "warm oozies" is actually feeling them and that such feelings are provoked by the Spirit.

Paul's Damascus Road experience was also quite subjective. Ananias' conversation with the Lord (Acts 9:10-19) was also quite subjective. We don't have much evidence for their experiences other than their eyewitness accounts.

The credulity of those engaging in these "I feel something!" experiences is horrible to observe. All someone has to say is, "It's the Spirit!" and everybody nods their heads in agreement, no matter how bizarre and ugly the "manifestation" is.

Fair enough. I agree that blind acceptance of any claim without any sort of discernment and adequate scrutiny is a horrible practice, and a recipe for deception. At the other extreme, automatic rejection of anything which is outside of one's comfort zone can also lead to many false negatives. We should avoid false positives, but we should also avoid false negatives too. That's why each experience and manifestation has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise we might be falling victims of the fallacy of false generalization.

This sort of stuff is not of God. At all.
Scripture teaches us a very different way of walking with God. See my first post to this thread.

Again - scriptural silence is not prescriptive either.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

When you say you don't know God from personal experience, are you saying you have never felt God? The Spirit has never moved you? You have never seen God in Creation?

Yes to each question, provided that you replace "God" with "Christian God". I've never had any kind of confirmatory personal experience that reveals the "Christian God" specifically to my life.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." - Romans 1:20

This works as an argument for "God" in a general, abstract sense. Many people feel persuaded to believe in an Intelligent Designer of the universe, I agree. But at best that can make you a theist. You would need something more to move you from a general theistic position to having an actual, life-changing conversion experience to Christianity. Just believing in an abstract, far away designer of the universe is not enough. Does this make sense?

 

[aiki]

Again - scriptural silence is not prescriptive either

To the matters of Christian belief and practice the Bible is entirely sufficient to guide all Christians. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Scripture is not given as a text on quantum mechanics or knitting but as the divinely-inspired word of God that provides to us all we need to know to walk rightly with God. It's total silence on modern hyper-charismatic spiritual practices is, then, significant and instructive where its silence on chemistry, or geologic processes, or entropy is not.

The Bible proposes to instruct us exhaustively on Christian doctrine and conduct and so we can reasonably assume that, like a cake recipe that doesn't need to explicitly exclude all other ingredients except the ones it prescribes, what Scripture doesn't list in its "recipe" of Christian living and teachings is not part of that "recipe."

 

[TruthSeek3r]

To the matters of Christian belief and practice the Bible is entirely sufficient to guide all Christians. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Scripture is not given as a text on quantum mechanics or knitting but as the divinely-inspired word of God that provides to us all we need to know to walk rightly with God.

The Bible provides all we need to know in terms of general principles that are applicable to all Christians alike, but the Bible is by no means exhaustive when it comes concrete, specific situations. What Good is a Manual without a Radio?

It's total silence on modern hyper-charismatic spiritual practices is, then, significant and instructive where its silence on chemistry, or geologic processes, or entropy is not.

It depends on your definition of 'hyper-charismatic spiritual practices'. I'm a bit wary of general accusatory statements that make use of ambiguous, poorly defined terms. And again, you have to be careful and analyze each experience/manifestation on a case-by-case basis. You don't want to be giving the glory to Satan for something that the Holy Spirit might be actually doing.

The Bible proposes to instruct us exhaustively on Christian doctrine and conduct and so we can reasonably assume that, like a cake recipe that doesn't need to explicitly exclude all other ingredients except the ones it prescribes, what Scripture doesn't list in its "recipe" of Christian living and teachings is not part of that "recipe."

Except that the Bible itself explicitly states that there are genuine, valid ingredients which are not stated in it (see John 21:25, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4)

 

[Chris35]

Couple of questions for you, please answer them truthfully.

Do you believe God exists?
Do you believe the Christian God is God?
Do you believe Jesus died for your sins?

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Do you believe God exists?

I think there are compelling arguments for God's existence, so I would say that the answer is most likely yes.

Do you believe the Christian God is God?

I think Christianity is the religion that makes the most sense for different reasons. So if God is real, under my current understanding of things I would say yes, it most probably has to be the Christian God.

Do you believe Jesus died for your sins?

I mean, this statement is obviously true if Christianity is true. This is the foundational premise of Christianity, that Jesus died and resurrected for the sins of mankind. I have it totally clear on an intellectual level.

 

[aiki]

The Bible provides all we need to know in terms of general principles that are applicable to all Christians alike, but the Bible is by no means exhaustive when it comes concrete, specific situations.

The Bible provides to the Christian believer considerably more than "general principles." It gives to us divine commands, promises, truths, wisdom and practices by which we are to live our lives. And all of these things we are to apply, as appropriate, to the "concrete, specific situations" in which we find ourselves.

It depends on your definition of 'hyper-charismatic spiritual practices'. I'm a bit wary of general accusatory statements that make use of ambiguous, poorly defined terms. And again, you have to be careful and analyze each experience/manifestation on a case-by-case basis. You don't want to be giving the glory to Satan for something that the Holy Spirit might be actually doing.

No, I don't think one does have to analyze each "manifestation" on a case-by-case basis. We are told in Scripture what we can expect as a common experience of the Spirit and none of the "toking," "soaking," "tingling," "slaying," and emotional hysteria of the hyper-charismatic movement are part of that experience. The "recipe" of the Christian life laid out in the Bible does not include these grotesque, fleshly, pagan-ish things.

Except that the Bible itself explicitly states that there are genuine, valid ingredients which are not stated in it (see John 21:25, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4)

John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Where does John indicate in this verse that "genuine, valid ingredients" have been left out? Nowhere. The fact that John does not include the things he mentioned in this verse in his Gospel account suggests to me very strongly that they were not essential to the faith like the things he did include. Certainly, under divine inspiration, we can trust that those things that John should have included were and those that did not warrant inclusion were excluded. This verse, then, does not offer any ground that I can see to assert that there are important features/truths/principles/practices of the Christian faith the Bible does not contain.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knows) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knows)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Again, I don't see how this verse opens the door on extra-biblical divine truth. Paul says in this passage that the "unspeakable words" he heard he was forbidden to utter, that to do so would have been "unlawful." Implicit in this is the fact that we are not to know what it was Paul heard. We have in God's word all we need to know to live properly as Christians; the "unspeakable words" Paul heard are not part of that essential body of knowledge. How, then, does this passage give us cause to look outside Scripture for additional knowledge prescribing Christian belief and practice? At most, all this passage indicates is that there is heavenly knowledge forbidden to us.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

The Bible provides to the Christian believer considerably more than "general principles." It gives to us divine commands, promises, truths, wisdom and practices by which we are to live our lives. And all of these things we are to apply, as appropriate, to the "concrete, specific situations" in which we find ourselves.

But they are general. Which Bible verse tells you if you are supposed to marry person X, person Y or remain single for the rest of your life? Which Bible verse tells you which career you are supposed to study and what university you are to attend? Which Bible verse tells you your personal calling, whether you are called to be a pastor, an evangelist, a teacher, a missionary, etc.? If you are a missionary, which Bible verse tells you the country you are called to go and the specific date when you have to go, for how many years, etc.? Which Bible verse tells you where you are supposed to run the next evangelistic campaign, the exact date, for how many days and who are going to be your collaborators? Which Bible verse tells you if you are to fast for 10 days, 20 days, 30 days, 40 days and when the fast has to start?

No, I don't think one does have to analyze each "manifestation" on a case-by-case basis. We are told in Scripture what we can expect as a common experience of the Spirit and none of the "toking," "soaking," "tingling," "slaying," and emotional hysteria of the hyper-charismatic movement are part of that experience.

Where does the Bible talk about "common" experiences? Which verse makes statements about statistics of possible experiences? Can you provide a concrete verse that says this?

The "recipe" of the Christian life laid out in the Bible does not include these grotesque, fleshly, pagan-ish things.

That's a statement of personal opinion, so I will weigh it as that.

John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Where does John indicate in this verse that "genuine, valid ingredients" have been left out? Nowhere.

I was just borrowing your own vocabulary. You used the word "ingredient" and talked about "recipes". So I can reverse the question back to you: where does the Bible talk about "ingredients" and "recipes"? Can you share concrete verses?

The fact that John does not include the things he mentioned in this verse in his Gospel account suggests to me very strongly that they were not essential to the faith like the things he did include. Certainly, under divine inspiration, we can trust that those things that John should have included were and those that did not warrant inclusion were excluded. This verse, then, does not offer any ground that I can see to assert that there are important features/truths/principles/practices of the Christian faith the Bible does not contain.

You have a contradiction then. On the one hand, you claim that everything that is in the Bible is essential (i.e. prescriptive), yet on the other hand you consider the experiences recorded in the Bible merely descriptive, not prescriptive. It looks like you are arbitrarily picking and choosing what is prescriptive and what is descriptive.

 

[Chris35]

Truthseeker, i do believe that God is working in you or you wouldnt be here, or come this far.

At this point you probably have alot of opinions about what to do, and what not to do. It sounds like a real mess on the inside.

Id let go of the needing a supernatural experience for now, and morso realize that your a mess on the inside atm, and that you cannot fix it yourself, cause you been trying for a long time and are not really getting anywhere.

God knows whats stopping you, and its usually never what we think. I suggest that you turn to Jesus and just tell him where your at with your belief with him, tell him that if he does exist, you want him in your life and to know him, but that your having alot of problems. Ask him for understanding about what is going on inside you, ask him to work in you to remove, and to work through any obstacles that is stopping you from coming to him.

 

[angelsaroundme]

This works as an argument for "God" in a general, abstract sense. Many people feel persuaded to believe in an Intelligent Designer of the universe, I agree. But at best that can make you a theist. You would need something more to move you from a general theistic position to having an actual, life-changing conversion experience to Christianity. Just believing in an abstract, far away designer of the universe is not enough. Does this make sense?

Yes, I think so. From how you describe things, it sounds as though you are trying to prove that God is Jesus/YHWH rather than another deity.

As John 4:24 says, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth." I interpret this as meaning we must seek God in a certain way. The spirit is our inner dimension, to put it in a modern framework, it's sort of like wi-fi, an invisible force that connect us to things very far away. With the spirit or wi-fi, we can reach God. Without this, we cannot. It would be like trying to get an email with the wi-fi turned off, it won't work.

The way that most people "turn on their wi-fi" is by recognizing their need for God, calling out for God, to wash them in the blood of Christ and bless them with the Holy Spirit. The spirit isn't just emotion but emotion is part of it. Approaching God in a kind of cold, rational "scientific" way is not likely to yield results.

 

[aiki]

But they are general. Which Bible verse tells you if you are supposed to marry person X, person Y or remain single for the rest of your life? Which Bible verse tells you which career you are supposed to study and what university you are to attend? Which Bible verse tells you your personal calling, whether you are called to be a pastor, an evangelist, a teacher, a missionary, etc.? If you are a missionary, which Bible verse tells you the country you are called to go and the specific date when you have to go, for how many years, etc.? Which Bible verse tells you where you are supposed to run the next evangelistic campaign, the exact date, for how many days and who are going to be your collaborators? Which Bible verse tells you if you are to fast for 10 days, 20 days, 30 days, 40 days and when the fast has to start?

The application of the truths, wisdom, commands and spiritual principles of God's word may be done in a broad, general way, but the truths, wisdom, commands and spiritual principles of God's word themselves are often very specific:

You shall not have any other gods before God.
You shall not worship any other god but the One True God.
You shall not lie.
You shall not covet.
You shall not take God's name in vain.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
Abstain from fornication.
Let your words always be seasoned with grace.
Love not the world neither the things that are in it.
Desire the sincere milk of the word.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord.
Submit to God.
Love the Christian brethren in emulation of the self-sacrificing example of Christ.

And so on.

These are not vague commands, but very direct, explicit and specific commands forbidding particular behaviours and commanding others. No one reads, "You shall not commit adultery," and wonders what the command is talking about; no one reads, "You shall not murder," and thinks the command is referring to how one mows the lawn; no one reads, "Submit to God," and finds the command confusing and amorphous, perhaps having to do with how to change the spark plugs in one's car.

The situations across which these commands may be applied may, at times, be quite wide in their scope, but this doesn't make the commands themselves general in their content.

The same holds true of spiritual principles, and divine wisdom, and biblical promises and practices.

Where does the Bible talk about "common" experiences? Which verse makes statements about statistics of possible experiences? Can you provide a concrete verse that says this?

Look at my first post to this thread.

That's a statement of personal opinion, so I will weigh it as that.

No, it is a statement of fact. You will find none of the horrible, blasphemous practices like "toking the Spirit," or "soaking in the Spirit," or being "slain in the Spirit" described or taught anywhere in all of the New Testament. The "recipe" of the Christian life laid out in the Bible includes none of these awful, pagan things.

I was just borrowing your own vocabulary. You used the word "ingredient" and talked about "recipes". So I can reverse the question back to you: where does the Bible talk about "ingredients" and "recipes"? Can you share concrete verses?

The reason the words "recipe" and "ingredients" are in quotation marks is to indicate that I am speaking figuratively, not literally. You are just slipping around my point and question by diverting to the metaphoric language I've used. Why the red herring, TruthSeek3r?

You have a contradiction then. On the one hand, you claim that everything that is in the Bible is essential (i.e. prescriptive), yet on the other hand you consider the experiences recorded in the Bible merely descriptive, not prescriptive. It looks like you are arbitrarily picking and choosing what is prescriptive and what is descriptive.

And now you're resorting to Strawman arguing.

What experiences of people recorded in Scripture do I rule out as prescriptive? On what basis? You don't know because you haven't asked for clarification but have just erected this distorted version of my approach to the various accounts offered in the Bible, implying that all recorded instances of experiences I discard as prescriptive. This is not so, though.

Many Bible stories and the experiences of the people in them are instructive but not necessarily prescriptive. Do you know what the difference between these two things might be?

The Bible is not one long description of the experiences of God had by various people. The "wisdom literature" of Proverbs is a good example. Much of the writing of the NT is taken up with the explication of Christian doctrine, not personal experience. There is a significant amount of Scripture then, that doesn't fall under the descriptive-prescriptive personal experience situation.

It seems you're very committed to chasing after a hyper-charismatic "experience" of God. "A man 'convinced' against his will is of the same opinion still," seems to be appropo to our exchange. So, I've said all I think I'll say to you on this matter. You're clearly closed off to what I'm telling you and I'm not really interested in the protracted arguments that has arisen as a result.

I hope and pray God will make Himself real to you.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

The application of the truths, wisdom, commands and spiritual principles of God's word may be done in a broad, general way, but the truths, wisdom, commands and spiritual principles of God's word themselves are often very specific:

You shall not have any other gods before God.
You shall not worship any other god but the One True God.
You shall not lie.
You shall not covet.
You shall not take God's name in vain.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
Abstain from fornication.
Let your words always be seasoned with grace.
Love not the world neither the things that are in it.
Desire the sincere milk of the word.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord.
Submit to God.
Love the Christian brethren in emulation of the self-sacrificing example of Christ.

And so on.

These are not vague commands, but very direct, explicit and specific commands forbidding particular behaviours and commanding others. No one reads, "You shall not commit adultery," and wonders what the command is talking about; no one reads, "You shall not murder," and thinks the command is referring to how one mows the lawn; no one reads, "Submit to God," and finds the command confusing and amorphous, perhaps having to do with how to change the spark plugs in one's car.

The situations across which these commands may be applied may, at times, be quite wide in their scope, but this doesn't make the commands themselves general in their content.

The same holds true of spiritual principles, and divine wisdom, and biblical promises and practices.

I beg to differ. Let me explain why. Take for example the commandment against adultery. You cannot have intercourse with anyone other than your spouse. Very simple, very clear, I agree with you on that. But not so fast, that's not the full picture. In Matthew 5:27-30, Jesus expands this commandment:

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.​

So we see that the matter is now quite much more complicated. The commandment is not just about not doing "the deed" itself - it is about not even having the desire to. And even more: we have to proactively avoid situations and circumstances that can trigger lustful desires. And here things become much more vague and less crystal clear. Does this mean that we have to throw all our TVs away, because there is a chance that we might come across a commercial with triggering content? Does it mean that we have to cancel all our social media accounts, because there is a chance that we might get recommended profiles with provocative images? Do we have to seclude ourselves and never go out, because there is a chance that someone might be dressing in a provocative way in the streets and that might cause us to stumble? Does it mean that we are not allowed to go to a shopping mall, attend college, university or even go to work, because there is a chance that someone dressing in a provocative manner might show up? Should we logically conclude that we have to live inside caves in order to avoid any kind of temptation, or simply remove our eyes, as a literal reading of Jesus' words suggests?

And what if someone is struggling with wet dreams, obsessive fantasies, masturbation, pornography, etc.? Matthew 5:27-30 says nothing about wet dreams, it says nothing about obsessive fantasies, it says nothing about masturbation, etc. As you can see, matters become much more complicated, vague and less crystal clear when we consider the overwhelming complexity of concrete, specific real life situations.

And this just one example (the commandment against adultery and lust), but we can repeat the same story for each and every other commandment.

Furthermore, you completely ignored all the questions I asked you in my previous post, and I'm honestly interested to know how you would answer them. I'm copy-pasting them below:

• Which Bible verse tells you if you are supposed to marry person X, person Y or remain single for the rest of your life?
• Which Bible verse tells you which career you are supposed to study and what university you are to attend?
• Which Bible verse tells you your personal calling, whether you are called to be a pastor, an evangelist, a teacher, a missionary, etc.?
• If you are a missionary, which Bible verse tells you the country you are called to go and the specific date when you have to go, for how many years, etc.?
• Which Bible verse tells you where you are supposed to run the next evangelistic campaign, the exact date, for how many days and who are going to be your collaborators?
• Which Bible verse tells you if you are to fast for 10 days, 20 days, 30 days, 40 days and when the fast has to start?

No, it is a statement of fact. You will find none of the horrible, blasphemous practices like "toking the Spirit," or "soaking in the Spirit," or being "slain in the Spirit" described or taught anywhere in all of the New Testament. The "recipe" of the Christian life laid out in the Bible includes none of these awful, pagan things.

The words "horrible", "blasphemous", "awful" and "pagan" are adjectives denoting personal opinion about a practice. For your personal opinion to be regarded as a fact, it is not enough to simply state your opinion - you have to prove that your opinion is a fact. And the argument you just presented doesn't do it. If I may paraphrase your argument in a deductive form, it would look something like this:

• Premise 1: if something is not in the New Testament, then it is horrible, blasphemous, awful and pagan
• Premise 2: "toking the Spirit", "soaking in the Spirit" and being "slain in the Spirit" are not found in the New Testament.
• Conclusion: therefore, "toking the Spirit", "soaking in the Spirit" and being "slain in the Spirit" are horrible, blasphemous, awful and pagan.

The argument is valid, but it is not necessarily sound (for the difference between validity and soundness, please see Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). For your argument to be sound, you would need to justify Premise 1. Which would be quite hard to be honest, since that premise is utterly false. There are millions of things which are not stated in the New Testament (including most of Jesus' miracles), and it is evident that they are not all "horrible" and "blasphemous".

If you feel like I'm misrepresenting or misunderstanding your argument, I invite you to present it in a deductive form, with clear and unambiguous premises and conclusions (as I just did above), including justifications for the premises. Otherwise, I'm afraid we will continue misunderstanding and talking past each other every time.

The reason the words "recipe" and "ingredients" are in quotation marks is to indicate that I am speaking figuratively, not literally. You are just slipping around my point and question by diverting to the metaphoric language I've used. Why the red herring, TruthSeek3r?

Let's rewind back to the original passage that caused the whole confusion.

John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

You asked: Where does John indicate in this verse that "genuine, valid ingredients" have been left out? Nowhere.

My answer: the point I'm trying to make is the following: John is very clearly telling us that there is more to what God can do than what is explicitly stated in the Bible. You can't put God in a box and claim that only the things which are explicitly stated in the Bible are possible and everything else is automatically "horrible", "blasphemous", "awful" and "pagan", because 1) John 21:25 is a crystal clear refutation to this idea and 2) there is not a single verse supporting that statement.

Can you share a single verse that says "God cannot manifest in ways which are not explicitly stated in the Bible"?

And now you're resorting to Strawman arguing.

What experiences of people recorded in Scripture do I rule out as prescriptive? On what basis?
You don't know because you haven't asked for clarification but have just erected this distorted version of my approach to the various accounts offered in the Bible, implying that all recorded instances of experiences I discard as prescriptive. This is not so, though.

In a previous post you explicitly said the following:

And then, too, there is the matter of making a description a prescription. The mere description of an event in the Bible does not make it necessarily prescriptive for the reader. We don't assume that because Moses had a burning bush experience that we must all therefore have the same. This is to make the description of what happened to Moses prescriptive, which it isn't. Modern Christians do this a lot with the Bible, assuming that because certain supernatural experiences people had are described in the Bible, they are, therefore, things believers ought to pursue as experiences, too.​

Would you be so kind to disambiguate how you determine what is prescriptive and what is merely descriptive?

It seems you're very committed to chasing after a hyper-charismatic "experience" of God.

Again - can you provide a formal definition of the term 'hyper-charismatic'? I don't know what you are talking about.

I hope and pray God will make Himself real to you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

 

[aiki]

I beg to differ. Let me explain why. Take for example the commandment against adultery. You cannot have intercourse with anyone other than your spouse. Very simple, very clear, I agree with you on that. But not so fast, that's not the full picture. In Matthew 5:27-30, Jesus expands this commandment:

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
So we see that the matter is now quite much more complicated. The commandment is not just about not doing "the deed" itself - it is about not even having the desire to. And even more: we have to proactively avoid situations and circumstances that can trigger lustful desires. And here things become much more vague and less crystal clear. Does this mean that we have to throw all our TVs away, because there is a chance that we might come across a commercial with triggering content? Does it mean that we have to cancel all our social media accounts, because there is a chance that we might get recommended profiles with provocative images? Do we have to seclude ourselves and never go out, because there is a chance that someone might be dressing in a provocative way in the streets and that might cause us to stumble? Does it mean that we are not allowed to go to a shopping mall, attend college, university or even go to work, because there is a chance that someone dressing in a provocative manner might show up? Should we logically conclude that we have to live inside caves in order to avoid any kind of temptation, or simply remove our eyes, as a literal reading of Jesus' words suggests?

And what if someone is struggling with wet dreams, obsessive fantasies, masturbation, pornography, etc.? Matthew 5:27-30 says nothing about wet dreams, it says nothing about obsessive fantasies, it says nothing about masturbation, etc. As you can see, matters become much more complicated, vague and less crystal clear when we consider the overwhelming complexity of concrete, specific real life situations.

And this just one example (the commandment against adultery and lust), but we can repeat the same story for each and every other commandment.

Furthermore, you completely ignored all the questions I asked you in my previous post, and I'm honestly interested to know how you would answer them. I'm copy-pasting them below:

• Which Bible verse tells you if you are supposed to marry person X, person Y or remain single for the rest of your life?
• Which Bible verse tells you which career you are supposed to study and what university you are to attend?
• Which Bible verse tells you your personal calling, whether you are called to be a pastor, an evangelist, a teacher, a missionary, etc.?
• If you are a missionary, which Bible verse tells you the country you are called to go and the specific date when you have to go, for how many years, etc.?
• Which Bible verse tells you where you are supposed to run the next evangelistic campaign, the exact date, for how many days and who are going to be your collaborators?
• Which Bible verse tells you if you are to fast for 10 days, 20 days, 30 days, 40 days and when the fast has to start?

You have either not understood my observation about application or are purposefully ignoring it. All that you describe here is a matter of application of divine command, not of the specificity of the command itself. A widely-applicable command is not so necessarily because it is vague and general in its character. As I explained, God's moral commands are all very particular.

The words "horrible", "blasphemous", "awful" and "pagan" are adjectives denoting personal opinion about a practice. For your personal opinion to be regarded as a fact, it is not enough to simply state your opinion - you have to prove that your opinion is a fact.

This is another slippery red-herring maneuver. You know perfectly well my point that toking, soaking and being slain in the Spirit are not taught or described in Scripture is true; but you deflect from this fact by orienting on my descriptions of these practices, trying to negate my point in so doing. Why are you resorting to these rhetorical tactics?

• Premise 1: if something is not in the New Testament, then it is horrible, blasphemous, awful and pagan

• Premise 2: "toking the Spirit", "soaking in the Spirit" and being "slain in the Spirit" are not found in the New Testament.

• Conclusion: therefore, "toking the Spirit", "soaking in the Spirit" and being "slain in the Spirit" are horrible, blasphemous, awful and pagan.

This is a classic Strawman. Nowhere did I assert anything like premise 1 of your Strawman. It is utterly ridiculous on its face and would never be a view I would hold.

Why are you miring yourself more and more in such specious arguing?

My answer: the point I'm trying to make is the following: John is very clearly telling us that there is more to what God can do than what is explicitly stated in the Bible. You can't put God in a box and claim that only the things which are explicitly stated in the Bible are possible and everything else is automatically "horrible", "blasphemous", "awful" and "pagan", because 1) John 21:25 is a crystal clear refutation to this idea and 2) there is not a single verse supporting that statement.

This is just more Strawman stuff. Clearly, you aren't really interested in considering and understanding what I'm writing. I have never contended against the fact that God's nature and power are beyond what Scripture reveals. You are making unwarranted leaps from what I've written to these faulty assumptions (that you're giving as assertions) about my views. Why? I am by no means writing vaguely or ambiguously.

And so, this is my last post in this thread.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

You have either not understood my observation about application or are purposefully ignoring it. All that you describe here is a matter of application of divine command, not of the specificity of the command itself. A widely-applicable command is not so necessarily because it is vague and general in its character. As I explained, God's moral commands are all very particular.

But I just provided you with a counterexample that shows that's not the case. The command against adultery is not specific enough about how to handle wet dreams, for example.

Remember that this whole discussion began because you claimed that the Bible contains all what a Christian will ever need to know in order to live a Christian life. And I provided to you very clear counterexamples that show that there are tons of decisions that Christians have to make in their walks that require information not found in the Bible.

Here is a challenge for you. Please answer these questions: how do you know what is your calling? How do you know if you are called to be a pastor, an evangelist, a teacher, a missionary, etc.? Where does the information about your personal calling come from?

This is another slippery red-herring maneuver. You know perfectly well my point that toking, soaking and being slain in the Spirit are not taught or described in Scripture is true; [...]

Sure, I know that, I fully agree with you on this. In fact, that was exactly Premise 2 in the deductive argument I presented before, in an attempt to paraphrase your own words. I have no issues with Premise 2. I'm copy-pasting the argument again below:

• Premise 1: if something is not in the New Testament, then it is horrible, blasphemous, awful and pagan
• Premise 2: "toking the Spirit", "soaking in the Spirit" and being "slain in the Spirit" are not found in the New Testament. (<<<< I FULLY AGREE WITH THIS PREMISE)
• Conclusion: therefore, "toking the Spirit", "soaking in the Spirit" and being "slain in the Spirit" are horrible, blasphemous, awful and pagan.

[...] but you deflect from this fact by orienting on my descriptions of these practices, trying to negate my point in so doing. Why are you resorting to these rhetorical tactics?

I really don't understand what you are talking about here. I already agreed with you that toking, soaking and being slain in the Spirit are not explicitly found in the Bible. I never said that Premise 2 was false. My objections were against Premise 1.

This is a classic Strawman. Nowhere did I assert anything like premise 1 of your Strawman. It is utterly ridiculous on its face and would never be a view I would hold.

Why are you miring yourself more and more in such specious arguing?

Premise 1 came from the following (quoting your own words):

No, it is a statement of fact. You will find none of the horrible, blasphemous practices like "toking the Spirit," or "soaking in the Spirit," or being "slain in the Spirit" described or taught anywhere in all of the New Testament. The "recipe" of the Christian life laid out in the Bible includes none of these awful, pagan things.
​

When I read this paragraph, the impression I get is that you are basically concluding that these practices (toking, soaking, slain) are horrible, blasphemous, awful, pagan because the Bible does not explicitly mention them (i.e. Premise 1), since you haven't provided any other reasons to support your claim.

But instead of having me infer your implicit reasoning, why not make it explicit yourself? Why do you claim that toking, soaking and being slain in the Spirit are horrible, blasphemous, awful, pagan practices?

This is just more Strawman stuff. Clearly, you aren't really interested in considering and understanding what I'm writing.

I've read and addressed each and every single point you have raised in your previous posts, and I've asked you questions to gain deeper insight into your viewpoint. How is that indication that I am not interested in considering and understanding what you're writing?

I have never contended against the fact that God's nature and power are beyond what Scripture reveals. You are making unwarranted leaps from what I've written to these faulty assumptions (that you're giving as assertions) about my views. Why? I am by no means writing vaguely or ambiguously.

Time after time you have criticized different spiritual experiences because they are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Would you be so kind to explain in a clear and unambiguous way how you go from A = "X is not in the Bible" to B = "X is horrible, blasphemous, awful, pagan"? How do you make the logical connection from A to B?

And so, this is my last post in this thread.

Just when the discussion was getting interesting.

 

[SANTOSO]

Some background to my question:

• I'm a truth seeker. I come from a scientific mindset background, but the last couple years I've been intensely researching about the supernatural and the spirit realm. I've watched testimonies from all kinds of religions, including testimonies from people who practiced witchcraft, the occult, Satanism, Hindu mystics, New Agers, Kundalini awakening, Reiki healers, paranormal investigators, people who have used Ouija boards, and of course, testimonies from Christians, baptism in the Holy Spirit, Christophanies, healing miracles, gifts of the spirit, words of knowledge, speaking in tongues (including unknown foreign languages), demonic possessions, exorcisms, etc. All this has led to me conclude that the spirit realm has to exist.
• I believe that encounters with God are possible. As I just said, I've watched tons of testimonies, including first-hand accounts of powerful encounters with the Creator. To give you an idea, here are some notable examples: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8, example 9, example 10, example 11, example 12, example 13, example 14, example 15, example 16, example 17, example 18, example 19, example 20, example 21.

I'm currently at a position in which I'm extremely obsessed with knowing the truth first-hand. As I already said, I've watched tons of testimonies, but after almost two years of doing the same, I'm starting to see no point in storing more and more anecdotal information in my head if I don't live out these things by myself. I know a lot about God (theory), but I don't know God (personal experience/testimony), if that makes sense. So my obvious next step is to seek God, to seek an encounter with Him. Unfortunately, every time I try, I keep failing miserably. I know that the key ingredients to seek God are consistent 1) prayer, 2) fasting, 3) reading the Bible, 4) obedience, 5) a life of holiness, 6) having faith, and of course 7) repentance and having accepted Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior. I know the theory. Intellectually speaking, things are quite clear to me. The problem is that I'm struggling to implement the theory successfully.

There are many distractions, temptations and weaknesses that are making it extremely hard for me to achieve a significant streak in which I successfully implement the 7 points I listed above. I keep messing up all the time and I'm not getting results. God still appears abstract and very distant to me, and when I read the Bible and the stories of the prophets, the apostles, the early Church, or when I remind myself of the testimonies that I've watched (like the ones I listed above), I feel like a total failure, trapped, unable to achieve any kind of spiritual breakthrough.

One thing that I would love to do is to have like serious period of seeking God with prayer and fasting for, say, 7 days in a row, without any distractions, just full-time seeking God, but the problem is that there are always distractions, responsibilities, things that take away my time, and I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. Then I go back to watching more testimonies to regain motivation, but at the end of day, that's just more intellectual information for my head, but what is the point of wasting my life away with hours and hours of investigation and watching endless testimonies if, at the end of the day, it doesn't translate into an actual, real encounter with God?

I seriously need a spiritual breakthrough and I've got no idea what to do about it.

Dear one,
Are you seeking spiritual encounter with the Lord ? Do you mean that you are seeking His presence ?

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Dear one,
Are you seeking spiritual encounter with the Lord ? Do you mean that you are seeking His presence ?

I explain what I'm seeking in post #10 of this thread. But in short, yes, I'm seeking a personal encounter with God that radically changes everything.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

The record of Scripture is replete with instances of God dealing with people in unusual, supernatural ways. But, you know, Moses didn't go looking for a burning bush; the prophet Amos didn't crave the role of prophet; Gideon wasn't eager to be used by God to defeat the enemies of Israel; Paul wasn't out searching for the Damascus Road experience when he had it; Abraham wasn't yearning for God to make him the father of many nations. Did the disciples expect Jesus to arrive and tell them to follow him? No. God may approach a person in an extraordinary way, but if the Bible is anything to go by, more often than not, He does so with the person who is not looking for such an experience at all.

Overall I agree with what you said in this paragraph, but for the record, I want to point out that there are biblical examples of Christians proactively seeking a supernatural intervention from God. For instance:

Acts 4:29-31 (ESV):

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.
​

1 Corinthians 14:1 (ESV):

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.​

1 Corinthians 14:24-25 (ESV):

24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
​

Ephesians 5:18-21 (ESV):

18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.​

Luke 11:13 (ESV):

13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”​

 

[snugglemantis]

It's not uncommon for those with a scientific mind to struggle in this way. I apologize if you've already said so, but what is your true motivation for seeking God?