The Christian of the Future Will Either Be a Mystic or Cease to Be.

[public hermit]

The quote: "The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic,’ one who has experienced ‘something,’ or he will cease to be anything at all." Karl Rahner

The idea is fairly simple: In a world where dogmatic claims amount to little more than mere opinion, unless one has experienced God, their claims are subject to a scrutiny under which they cannot survive except as mere opinion.

Is the devout Christian a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence, a mere believer in dogma, or simply someone with an opinion?

 

[Jipsah]

Is the devout Christian a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence, a mere believer in dogma, or simply someone with an opinion?

The answer may be "yes".

 

[timothyu]

If a Christian is focused on what is the will of God, how it rights the wrongs our will creates and understands why His is better and follows it.. what more is there to Christianity? It is the system that matters. His will be done in earth as it is in Heaven. He's been trying to get it through man's thick skulls since the Garden. The ultimate governing and societal way that needs no religion to be practiced. Love all as self.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The quote: "The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic,’ one who has experienced ‘something,’ or he will cease to be anything at all." Karl Rahner

The idea is fairly simple: In a world where dogmatic claims amount to little more than mere opinion, unless one has experienced God, their claims are subject to a scrutiny under which they cannot survive except as mere opinion.

Is the devout Christian a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence, a mere believer in dogma, or simply someone with an opinion?

There are a lot of people assenting intellectually to christian philosophies.

There are not many who have experienced what the bible talks about.

The bible talks about many things. Even if you experience a part of it, it might be bad news for you, depending on what it is.

Peer pressure resulting in people engaging in the occult to duplicate the signs in the bible, is not necessarily .. "the spiritual truth" .. in a sense they may be like an antihero type.

So if you experience hell, and preach hell, where is the good news in your gospel? Are you then, at all redeemed?

So it follows, people treat the bible as a litigation handbook to guilt trip God into answering prayers, and convince themselves that they are saved. However, ??

So when one is born again by the Holy Spirit, and love is matured in their hearts over the years so they have boldness on the day of judgment, because they're like Jesus in this world ... What fellowship exists amidst such confusion of spiritual identity?

So perhaps to live in these questions is the answer.

 

[Tolworth John]

The idea is fairly simple: In a world where dogmatic claims amount to little more than mere opinion, unless one has experienced God, their claims are subject to a scrutiny under which they cannot survive except as mere opinion.

Nothing new in that.
Why do you think methodism came into being?
Because a polite socially exclusive religous practice could not cope with an inclusive radical life changing belief.

It is happening now in places like north korea, china and most islamic countries.
It will happen in the west as society rejects more and more of its remnants of Christianity.

 

[Jonaitis]

Is the devout Christian a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence, a mere believer in dogma, or simply someone with an opinion?

A mystic is the true definition of a Christian. All this doctrine/theology talk becomes pointless in the face of the direct experience of God. Even the most religious people become theological after a mystical experience, and base the validity of their faith around that experience ("Christian faith must be true because it changed my life..."). Without a direct encounter with God, Christianity and the whole system is pointless. This is why I emphasis repentance as one of God's main focuses in salvation. The change of heart is the beginning of true religion, not agreeing with a set of beliefs.

Edit: to answer your question, I vote option #1.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The quote: "The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic,’ one who has experienced ‘something,’ or he will cease to be anything at all." Karl Rahner

The idea is fairly simple: In a world where dogmatic claims amount to little more than mere opinion, unless one has experienced God, their claims are subject to a scrutiny under which they cannot survive except as mere opinion.

Is the devout Christian a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence, a mere believer in dogma, or simply someone with an opinion?

I'd say "yes" to your OP header statement [rather than the unclear question you've posed within the body of the OP].

But then again, I know a lot of Christians who say "yes" to this too, although they tend to use different terms than Rahner has to describe their (various) experiences with God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

A meaningful personal encounter with God (experience) is fundamental. But then one must interpret that experience. What does it mean in the practical details of daily life? What does it imply about God? About the human person? and about society?

Too often the articulation of all that is dissociated from a meaningful personal experience.

 

[Blade]

"Karl Rahner is one of the most influential voices in Roman Catholicism today".

The stuff I have read I don't agree with experience, self, body-soul death as he talked about it. With out the infilling of the holy Spirit (Luke 11:13) your limited. Take what Christ said "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him." In spirit.. anyway.

 

[Saint Steven]

The quote: "The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic,’ one who has experienced ‘something,’ or he will cease to be anything at all." Karl Rahner

The idea is fairly simple: In a world where dogmatic claims amount to little more than mere opinion, unless one has experienced God, their claims are subject to a scrutiny under which they cannot survive except as mere opinion.

Is the devout Christian a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence, a mere believer in dogma, or simply someone with an opinion?

Wow. What an interesting OP and topic, thanks.

So, what makes a Christian mystic?

 

[Saint Steven]

The bible talks about many things. Even if you experience a part of it, it might be bad news for you, depending on what it is.

Yup. "... might be bad news for you..."
I was being encouraged to press into the prophetic gift.
I asked, "Are you nuts? Haven't you read the OT Prophets?"
I'm not signing up for that. If God wants me.... he knows where I live. - LOL

 

[public hermit]

So, what makes a Christian mystic?

Good question. It's a notoriously vague term. I think the most general way of defining Christian mysticism would be a direct experience of God/divine presence. At least, that would be, I think, a mystical experience. I would think many Christians have experienced the divine presence. I don't know how many have a persistent awareness or consciousness of the divine presence. There is a distinct difference in believing God is present and being conscious or aware of God's presence.

 

[Saint Steven]

Good question. It's a notoriously vague term. I think the most general way of defining Christian mysticism would be a direct experience of God/divine presence. At least, that would be, I think, a mystical experience. I would think many Christians have experienced the divine presence. I don't know how many have a persistent awareness or consciousness of the divine presence. There is a distinct difference in believing God is present and being conscious or aware of God's presence.

That's helpful, thanks.
I have certainly had experiences of the presence of God, as defined in your reply.
Happens quite frequently actually. Certainly at church, or in fellowship with other believers.
I could relate a few stories of more extraordinary things as well.

 

[Saint Steven]

There is a distinct difference in believing God is present and being conscious or aware of God's presence.

I wonder what the forum will be like when it is full of mystics?

 

[public hermit]

I wonder what the forum will be like when it is full of mystics?

More loving and gracious? Lol

I think when faith is understood primarily in terms of the content of one's beliefs, then disagreement tends to be more vitriolic since belief content is the most important value. Hence, the tendency to discount one's faith if they don't believe rightly.

Traditionally, Christian mysticism in both the east and the west has affirmed the transcendence of God so that beliefs about God are of value but they are also understood to be limited and ultimately fall short of the reality. The apophatic approach of the Cappadocians is instructive because even as they defended orthodoxy, particularly regarding the Trinity, they simultaneously affirmed the inscrutability of the divine nature. There is some doxastic humility to that approach that I think is often missing today. People are quick to throw out the heretic card, and no doubt feel self-righteous in doing so, but if one grasps that God transcends our very best ideas of God, then a certain amount of humility should follow.

 

[public hermit]

More loving and gracious? Lol

I think when faith is understood primarily in terms of the content of one's beliefs, then disagreement tends to be more vitriolic since belief content is the most important value. Hence, the tendency to discount one's faith if they don't believe rightly.

Traditionally, Christian mysticism in both the east and the west has affirmed the transcendence of God so that beliefs about God are of value but they are also understood to be limited and ultimately fall short of the reality. The apophatic approach of the Cappadocians is instructive because even as they defended orthodoxy, particularly regarding the Trinity, they simultaneously affirmed the inscrutability of the divine nature. There is some doxastic humility to that approach that I think is often missing today. People are quick to throw out the heretic card, and no doubt feel self-righteous in doing so, but if one grasps that God transcends our very best ideas of God, then a certain amount of humility should follow.

I should add that in both the eastern (hesychasm) and western traditions of contemplation or mysticism, the main culprit that inhibits consciousness of the divine presence is distracting thoughts/mind. In order to remain conscious of the divine presence the mind needs to be controlled via various practices. This idea goes back a good ways, e.g., Evagrius and John Cassian.

 

[timothyu]

and no doubt feel self-righteous

Considering anything self related can be considered sin.

 

[timothyu]

the main culprit that inhibits consciousness of the divine presence is distracting thoughts/mind.

Self interest over the will of God

 

[public hermit]

Considering anything self related can be considered sin.

I agree that self-centeredness, any focus that is primarily on self is behind all sin. Jesus was pretty clear on that, I think, and I don't disagree with your earlier point in this thread.

 

[public hermit]

Self interest over the will of God

I don't think what you're saying and the point I was making are unrelated. Much of our mental traffic is self-related including all our fears, worries, regrets, obsessions, etc. There is a distinct connection between Christ's kenosis (self-emptying) and the traditional approaches to contemplation.