61 replies to this topic

[Candice]

Here is the thing.... If Christ is alive and lives in you, what does his voice count for? Do we deny our ears and use only our eyes?

I think there must be a more simple way for me to understand...yes, His voice is there; His Spirit which convicts, guides, teaches and disciplines and even rebukes me. I think I need simple....simple...simple.

[aldo]

Aldo,

 

Is your book a little less formulaic in it's descriptions of CE? Just asking because the videos (I know they are synopses) are a little difficult for the uninitiated. Haven't watched all of them yet, though.

What I write tends to be more narrative in approach. (It may be that I I have better dicernment than writing skill.) My appraoch is that our most immediate connection with God is direct and in our experience. Our encounter with Christ is existential because it is in our existing. More so, we exist to be Christain. Our existing is central to being Christian. 

I would be pleased to share an electronic copy of my thinking, with the condition that the receipent makes an effort to read it and provide me with feedback.

regards

[aldo]

I think there must be a more simple way for me to understand...yes, His voice is there; His Spirit which convicts, guides, teaches and disciplines and even rebukes me. I think I need simple....simple...simple.

Your instincts are right on. The simplest thing is to follow Christ. In following Christ we experience existing as followers. In following and so in experiencing our existing acquires instruction directly from the Spirit of Christ. All the discussing and talking is what we do after we follow. Following is an easy doable "yoke": wisdom follows. I have found some of the most profound experience of holiness reflected in unschooled folks, who followed Christ without any need to discuss it.

 

regards

[Lori Smith]

Basically, existentialism is what Americans believe today. It's the notion that truth is how you perceive it. What may be true for you might not be true for me. Thus, there is no true reality; instead we merely have individual perceptions. That's part of our postmodern society. No one can state something is true because it's different for each of us. Of course, those of us who believe the Bible don't believe that; we do believe that there is something called truth that exists outside of ourselves.

 

There are also many subtle nuances of existentialism. For example, one might practice his faith and find that the practicing of it is all there is. Thus, instead of a back and forth with God, you have the practice of religion. Kierkegaard spoke about taking a leap of faith. That was supposed to be part of what started existentialism in some way because it meant you just trusted in your own experience. That's how I see it anyway. 

 

Shalom and blessings!

[aldo]

Basically, existentialism is what Americans believe today. It's the notion that truth is how you perceive it. What may be true for you might not be true for me. Thus, there is no true reality; instead we merely have individual perceptions. That's part of our postmodern society. No one can state something is true because it's different for each of us. Of course, those of us who believe the Bible don't believe that; we do believe that there is something called truth that exists outside of ourselves.

 

There are also many subtle nuances of existentialism. For example, one might practice his faith and find that the practicing of it is all there is. Thus, instead of a back and forth with God, you have the practice of religion. Kierkegaard spoke about taking a leap of faith. That was supposed to be part of what started existentialism in some way because it meant you just trusted in your own experience. That's how I see it anyway. 

 

Shalom and blessings!

If anyone has an interest in existentialism that is good... But, for one example, Martin Heidegger was a giant of 20th century philosophy and he, as an existentialist was more interested in Ontology, than mere perception.

 

On the surface, one might say Existentialism is subjective perception. But, more properly it is about we experience (perceptually, conceptually and intuitively). We experience all things subjectively, but where some perceptios are hallucinations and illusions, some are of reality itelf and the things of reality themselves. In either case, it we who experience it and more importantly, we who give what we experience meaning and significance.

 

So it is that we experience (and perceive) God, the Spirit of God, and Christ, in reality itself and in our own selves. We experience Christ subjectively --- personally. But, it is we who undeniably experience Christ as a reality --- that is as in Christ is alive and I encounter Christ in myself and out there. What we make of this experience of Christ is a choice or decision that we personally make with our personal encounter with Christ.

 

That decision or choice is at the root of Holiness, and to purse such an existing is to pursue Holiness.

 

This is why, we should not let people use a ‘lite’ existentialism. It is why existentialism is so relevant to those who undertake to follow (the infinite and eternal) Christ.

 

I think this can have a significant appeal to young people with ‘hungry minds’ and also to serious pursuers of Holiness.

 

regards

[Lori Smith]

Aldo,

 

I'm drawing from memory, so I might have forgotten all that Heidegger believed, but if I'm remembering correctly, I think he and the other German philosophers of his day felt that "being" or ontology or consciousness was in fact God. What I mean is that he believed that consciousness had no bounds and that man is capable of infinite growth in consciousness. Thus, perception or being is ALL there is. Thus, all subjectivity is merely the thoughts of men and God doesn't exist in the manner of Western or Christian thinking.

 

On the other hand, for me as a Christian, God is truly a person Who can be experienced, and it is not through consciousness but through an encounter with His divine Spirit when He makes us spiritually whole. Not, sure if I'm answering you the way you intended to be understood. Any clarification is welcome!

 

Blessings,

Lori

[aldo]

Aldo,

 

I'm drawing from memory, so I might have forgotten all that Heidegger believed, but if I'm remembering correctly, I think he and the other German philosophers of his day felt that "being" or ontology or consciousness was in fact God. What I mean is that he believed that consciousness had no bounds and that man is capable of infinite growth in consciousness. Thus, perception or being is ALL there is. Thus, all subjectivity is merely the thoughts of men and God doesn't exist in the manner of Western or Christian thinking.

 

On the other hand, for me as a Christian, God is truly a person Who can be experienced, and it is not through consciousness but through an encounter with His divine Spirit when He makes us spiritually whole. Not, sure if I'm answering you the way you intended to be understood. Any clarification is welcome!

 

Blessings,

Lori

Close.... those philosophers did think "that "being" or ontology or consciousness was in fact God" but they meant it to mean God's concsiousness not ours...

 

Your second paragraph is more interesting... We do really encounter God in human terms through his spirit (as defined by the Word in Christ), we experieince that encounter and have perceptions, conception and intutions of it... This is the stuff of existential (experiential) Christianity... our existence our experience.

 

My question is if we actually and really encounter and experieince the spirit of God, i.e. Christ in us and in existence, and if we live through Christ then also in our own being, why is this not the foundation of our faith and belief? Its real. Its here. ...

[Lori Smith]

I see what you're saying about labeling an experiential relationship with God existential, but I don't agree. I'm a bit rusty discussing this, and I came to that conclusion when I was neck-deep in reading about it, thus, it would take awhile to go back and relearn everything. However, I do remember that as a spirit-filled Christian, my experience is far different than what Hegel or Heidegger describe. I know a personal Being who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There is nothing subjective about knowing Him. He IS in Himself, and our goal is to know Him.

 

Why don't we make knowing Him the foundation of our faith and belief? Well, we do. Jesus said, "this is eternal life that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent" (John 17:3). The entire Old Testament is God's Self-disclosure. In fact He cared more about people knowing Yada Him truly than any thing else (Hosea 6:6). Philosophers, on the other hand feel He can be found through the intellect. I disagree, for God cannot be found. Instead He discloses Himself to mere children who approach Him in faith according to boundaries He establishes in His Word. Revelation is His disclosure to us.

 

Shalom!

[aldo]

I see what you're saying about labeling an experiential relationship with God existential, but I don't agree. I'm a bit rusty discussing this, and I came to that conclusion when I was neck-deep in reading about it, thus, it would take awhile to go back and relearn everything. However, I do remember that as a spirit-filled Christian, my experience is far different than what Hegel or Heidegger describe. I know a personal Being who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There is nothing subjective about knowing Him. He IS in Himself, and our goal is to know Him.

 

Why don't we make knowing Him the foundation of our faith and belief? Well, we do. Jesus said, "this is eternal life that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent" (John 17:3). The entire Old Testament is God's Self-disclosure. In fact He cared more about people knowing Yada Him truly than any thing else (Hosea 6:6). Philosophers, on the other hand feel He can be found through the intellect. I disagree, for God cannot be found. Instead He discloses Himself to mere children who approach Him in faith according to boundaries He establishes in His Word. Revelation is His disclosure to us.

 

Shalom!

Well Lori...

 

In my walk, I find those who have actually experienced God much more persusaive, than those who rely on revelation alone and have only the revelation to share. I have a preference for learning by doing, than leaning through th einsights given by mere words. I find the latter a bit too much "through the intellect" as a mere insight to our cognition. Martin Luther, I think shared my experieince. He developed his 'theology of Cross' based on people actually having an experence of Christ in their lving, and he juxtaposed this to what he called 'theology of Glory' being the theology of the scholastics and Thomists of his day put forward as something to be learned rather known through experieince.

 

Your description in your second paragraph rings true to me... Christ discloses hiomself to me (and to children) by being within me and them, as the Word and Light of God, and I think that they experieince that presence sure as they experieince being alive.

 

have a good evening

[ADVRider]

I wanted to reply more to this thread, but I also no longer have the arguments in my brain any more, not that detailed discussion was ever my strength anyway. I was surprised I had even forgotten the leap of faith, but I don't have the desire or energy to study deeply for these purposes anymore. The little I did look up gave me the recollection of what Lori actually wrote. I found myself quickly thinking reader-response theory, post-modern subjectivism and literary deconstruction, at least concerning an existential view of scripture. It seems to me that if scripture does not have any objective meaning, then in the end, the reader becomes the arbiter of meaning, and ultimately can displace the God who is. I had a couple of professors years ago who I later found out were Neo-orthodox (same school perhaps) and one in particular was a huge fan of Bultmann and Barth. It was my first exposure to a hermeneutic that felt free to change things they did not like as they found them in the Bible. The OT especially, was said to be a narrative (story) where the deeper meaning had to be explored. Some stuff was obviously not meant to be taken literally. Most of us in my first OT class didn't buy it. I always felt that if a person handled scripture in that manner, then regardless of what the person thought was truth, it was not God speaking; instead, it was the reader's own thoughts. And any theology or philosophy that stresses man's role more than God's, well I think it is going to be suspect in my mind. I confess though I have been known to think God reminded me of something through a passage that was out of context (knowing it was out of context), but that can be a dangerous game. OTOH, I am equally not suggesting the meaning of scripture is so obvious that it can be grasped through the mind. The Bible itself says truth is spiritually discerned. Nevertheless, it is an objective truth revealed by the Spirit, which we then perceive through His agency. If we could discern spiritual things on our own, we really would not need God or a revelation from Him. But if God therefore gives the revelation, it cannot mean various things. We don't give it meaning, God does.  If you notice, I am only or mainly keeping my comments to existential thought in it's relationship to scripture. I could be way off though, and this is possibly all I have to say.

[ADVRider]

Well Lori...

 

In my walk, I find those who have actually experienced God much more persusaive, than those who rely on revelation alone and have only the revelation to share.

 

Christ discloses hiomself to me (and to children) by being within me and them, as the Word and Light of God, and I think that they experieince that presence sure as they experieince being alive.

 

have a good evening

Aldo,

 

I don't suspect anyone has a problem with what you are saying right here. Most Christians who are spiritually minded understand that mere head knowledge of the Bible does not produce any true fruit. Christ does have to be formed in us for us to be changed and to be able to impart those truths to others. I guess it is possible some of us here are not familiar enough with the finer points of CE, but it seems to me the same ideas can be conveyed in simpler terms, even the Bible's own terms. It could be just me, but various theological systems usually seem to complicate what is already clear in the Bible. Sorry, I am not trying to get at you here; just saying probably a lot of us here are not going to get it (the system as it is presented), whereas they do have a relationship with the Holy Spirit. We may or may not, be saying the same thing about God revealing Himself to us. Like you, I believe experience is very important, to the degree that I do not have much tolerance for strivings and contentions over doctrinal stuff or the latest pet trends in the church. But I hope you are saying that even what is perceived as a genuine spiritual revelation has to be scrutinized in the light of scripture. Now when I say even this, I know an intellectual understanding of scripture is insufficient for this. Yet there has to be some measure of one's experiences that is beyond the person. Otherwise, it can be deception time. I am sure a conversation over coffee would help clarify things, but obviously we cannot probably do that. I am more curious though now what Candice's pastor is up to, and why he won't share more. I guess it wasn't all I had to say.

[Lori Smith]

John,

 

I agree; it may be a matter of semantics. I certainly encounter God beyond the Words in the Bible. I feel his presence all the time. However, it is never a faceless presence. Instead, He has a real personality. On the other hand there were men like Karl Barth who stated they encountered Christ in the text. That's far different from what I perceive. As an example, I will use my eccentric red-headed aunt. Some might read about her and encounter her as they read. In other words they have an experience as they read the text. However, I would go to her house, open the door, and give her a hug. When I read the Bible, Jesus shows up and talks to me. During the day I can speak to Him at any time. He is more than an experience for me. An existential reality then is that we create an experience in anticipation of what we will encounter and we imagine what we might encounter. This gives us an experience. I have a more concrete "meeting" with God. (John I missed your first post. You already said all of this. I read on my smart phone, and I must have skimmed past the first one. Sorry!)

 

Wow, Candice, you started quite a topic!!

 

Aldo,

 

I appreciate your responses and your openness. I'm interested in reading more about what you mean.

 

Shalom!

[ADVRider]

John,

 

I agree; it may be a matter of semantics. I certainly encounter God beyond the Words in the Bible. I feel his presence all the time. However, it is never a faceless presence. Instead, He has a real personality. On the other hand there were men like Karl Barth who stated they encountered Christ in the text. That's far different from what I perceive. As an example, I will use my eccentric red-headed aunt. Some might read about her and encounter her as they read. In other words they have an experience as they read the text. However, I would go to her house, open the door, and give her a hug. When I read the Bible, Jesus shows up and talks to me. During the day I can speak to Him at any time. He is more than an experience for me. An existential reality then is that we create an experience in anticipation of what we will encounter and we imagine what we might encounter. This gives us an experience. I have a more concrete "meeting" with God. (John I missed your first post. You already said all of this. I read on my smart phone, and I must have skimmed past the first one. Sorry!)

 

Wow, Candice, you started quite a topic!!

 

Aldo,

 

I appreciate your responses and your openness. I'm interested in reading more about what you mean.

 

Shalom!

Lori,

 

Thanks for pointing out so simply this could be semantics. You articulate it better than I do. There is no doubt, God is a Person, a living being, and a life-giving Spirit, not just words on a page. Or more than words on a page. Only He can give life and meaning to the words of scripture that we read, because in fact, the truths written in there are spiritually discerned, not for the mind. My friend always likes to point out the carnal mind is an enemy of God. So for sure, we know there is much more to God than a Bible study. I am there with you and others who experience the Lord by His Spirit in dreams, visions, feelings, promptings, trials, struggles, and brokenness. Yet, those all have to be tested, do they not?

 

Aldo, could you expand on your earlier statement, "In either case, it we who experience it and more importantly, we who give what we experience meaning and significance"?

 

I kind of interpret that as putting us in the driver's seat ultimately, whether or not our experience is valid or significant. Hopefully, not trying to split hairs, just wondering how this statement plays out. I personally do not trust my own heart, my motives or my own understanding to have this kind of prerogative. But again, I may not be getting what you mean either.

[aldo]

John,

 

I agree; it may be a matter of semantics. I certainly encounter God beyond the Words in the Bible. I feel his presence all the time. However, it is never a faceless presence. Instead, He has a real personality. On the other hand there were men like Karl Barth who stated they encountered Christ in the text. That's far different from what I perceive. As an example, I will use my eccentric red-headed aunt. Some might read about her and encounter her as they read. In other words they have an experience as they read the text. However, I would go to her house, open the door, and give her a hug. When I read the Bible, Jesus shows up and talks to me. During the day I can speak to Him at any time. He is more than an experience for me. An existential reality then is that we create an experience in anticipation of what we will encounter and we imagine what we might encounter. This gives us an experience. I have a more concrete "meeting" with God. (John I missed your first post. You already said all of this. I read on my smart phone, and I must have skimmed past the first one. Sorry!)

 

Wow, Candice, you started quite a topic!!

 

Aldo,

 

I appreciate your responses and your openness. I'm interested in reading more about what you mean.

 

Shalom!

I have not read much of Barth. We can encounter Christ in the texts of scripture. But the fullness of a real encounter in our living --- there is none other.

 

You eccentric redi-haired aunt can be some help. You read about her, and know her that way. You actually encounter her and now know her 'face to face' as it were, through your real relationship of interacting with her. With this knowledge in hand, when you again read about her, you will read it differently.

 

Is this not also true of Christ? We read of him in scripture. But when we encounter Christ in our selves, and in others who have Christ in them, when we actually follow and 'put on' Christ, then act with his spirit in us driving us and shaping us, we have a real encounter --- an experience of Christ. Imagine, that we we again return to scripture biut this timer with eyes that have been opened and ears that can hear, because we put on the eyes and ears of Christ. Now we read with understanding that comes from us putting on the mind of Christ. And, through all this, it is not we but the spirit of Christ in us that leads us with his grace.

 

How important is that experieince? If it is important how can we enrich it? Can we share it?

 

Now, as you said, a child can do all this... and the child would grow in holiness... What the child can do we too can do...

 

It was a simple command: Follow me. In following, that is in experiencing by walking in his steps we acquire experieince nad knowledge of experience which I find as unshakable as my knowledge of my own existing.

 

I am really filling in what has been left out in regards to existentialism as it has been presented...

 

To once more lean on Martin Luther, a person must experience Christ to know Christ. And, as I see it, if I know Christ because I experience Christ --- no one will dislodge what I know for I know it as sure as I know I breathe....

 

I do go a step further. I have tried to understand what we mean by reality. It seems its a nebulous thing these days. But I am sure that there is reality. For me, Christ is not my creation: Christ is reality. I exist in that reality. Other people live in othe realities... and they reflect their realities in what and who they are. The Christian is framed by the Word of God and is of Christ and from Christ. My heart, my spirit, my mind: these are defined by a reality that is Christ. So my spiritual existing is because Christ is. I am a creature of Christ created from and of the reality of Christ. We are born from above from and of God, through Christ by means of the Word of God. None of these, are abstractions or mental constructs.

 

We do not create the Christian existential reality... it is. Christ is. Christ is existing now. I can experience that reality directly without an intermediary. I can commit to Christ because I know Christ first hand. This may God's greatest gift....

 

Those who follow Christ in living are being Christian. They have no other being of significance or meaning.

 

... I must apologize... I do get carried away with my reflections... must thank folks for their patience (p.s. - no spell check and I am key board challenged)

 

regards

[aldo]

I wanted to reply more to this thread, but I also no longer have the arguments in my brain any more, not that detailed discussion was ever my strength anyway. I was surprised I had even forgotten the leap of faith, but I don't have the desire or energy to study deeply for these purposes anymore. The little I did look up gave me the recollection of what Lori actually wrote. I found myself quickly thinking reader-response theory, post-modern subjectivism and literary deconstruction, at least concerning an existential view of scripture. It seems to me that if scripture does not have any objective meaning, then in the end, the reader becomes the arbiter of meaning, and ultimately can displace the God who is. I had a couple of professors years ago who I later found out were Neo-orthodox (same school perhaps) and one in particular was a huge fan of Bultmann and Barth. It was my first exposure to a hermeneutic that felt free to change things they did not like as they found them in the Bible. The OT especially, was said to be a narrative (story) where the deeper meaning had to be explored. Some stuff was obviously not meant to be taken literally. Most of us in my first OT class didn't buy it. I always felt that if a person handled scripture in that manner, then regardless of what the person thought was truth, it was not God speaking; instead, it was the reader's own thoughts. And any theology or philosophy that stresses man's role more than God's, well I think it is going to be suspect in my mind. I confess though I have been known to think God reminded me of something through a passage that was out of context (knowing it was out of context), but that can be a dangerous game. OTOH, I am equally not suggesting the meaning of scripture is so obvious that it can be grasped through the mind. The Bible itself says truth is spiritually discerned. Nevertheless, it is an objective truth revealed by the Spirit, which we then perceive through His agency. If we could discern spiritual things on our own, we really would not need God or a revelation from Him. But if God therefore gives the revelation, it cannot mean various things. We don't give it meaning, God does.  If you notice, I am only or mainly keeping my comments to existential thought in it's relationship to scripture. I could be way off though, and this is possibly all I have to say.

John

 

I do not think that those earnestly 'put on' Christ discern on our own. This would apply to scripture as well as our existential encounter with God and Christ. But, we must put on the whole of Christ --- not passively but actively. When we put on Christ and we undertake to follow Christ, then Christ acts within us to lead, guide and shape our actions. Existing is an active thing. The Christian's existing is actually an act of Christ, but the experience acquired is our experience --- through Christ as it were. The existing is also ours, personally ours. Christ acts and we exist. One can say this is the ground of existential Christianity. We acquire experience of Christ and with that comes the mind of Christ in us writing his laws on our minds and in our hearts, from which we are and act. Interesting place of learning; intersting teacher and counsellor...

[aldo]

Lori,

 

Thanks for pointing out so simply this could be semantics. You articulate it better than I do. There is no doubt, God is a Person, a living being, and a life-giving Spirit, not just words on a page. Or more than words on a page. Only He can give life and meaning to the words of scripture that we read, because in fact, the truths written in there are spiritually discerned, not for the mind. My friend always likes to point out the carnal mind is an enemy of God. So for sure, we know there is much more to God than a Bible study. I am there with you and others who experience the Lord by His Spirit in dreams, visions, feelings, promptings, trials, struggles, and brokenness. Yet, those all have to be tested, do they not?

 

Aldo, could you expand on your earlier statement, "In either case, it we who experience it and more importantly, we who give what we experience meaning and significance"?

 

I kind of interpret that as putting us in the driver's seat ultimately, whether or not our experience is valid or significant. Hopefully, not trying to split hairs, just wondering how this statement plays out. I personally do not trust my own heart, my motives or my own understanding to have this kind of prerogative. But again, I may not be getting what you mean either.

Hi

 

God did put us inthe driver's seat... didn't he? It is we who decide for Christ. It is we who choose to repent. It is we who choose to commit to Christ. Then it is we who live that choice and commitment. When we experieince Christ, what value does that have for us personally nad indivdiually? What significance and does it have for us personally? The Christian personally gives ultimate meaning and significance to being Christian. Peope can choose other things to be significant for them. The Christian in experiencing Christ comes to a first hand knowledge of the value of what the Christian has found and has tasted, as it were. Then the Christian commits to valuing Christ and being Christian as the most significant and meaningful value.

 

regards

[aldo]

Aldo,

 

I don't suspect anyone has a problem with what you are saying right here. Most Christians who are spiritually minded understand that mere head knowledge of the Bible does not produce any true fruit. Christ does have to be formed in us for us to be changed and to be able to impart those truths to others. I guess it is possible some of us here are not familiar enough with the finer points of CE, but it seems to me the same ideas can be conveyed in simpler terms, even the Bible's own terms. It could be just me, but various theological systems usually seem to complicate what is already clear in the Bible. Sorry, I am not trying to get at you here; just saying probably a lot of us here are not going to get it (the system as it is presented), whereas they do have a relationship with the Holy Spirit. We may or may not, be saying the same thing about God revealing Himself to us. Like you, I believe experience is very important, to the degree that I do not have much tolerance for strivings and contentions over doctrinal stuff or the latest pet trends in the church. But I hope you are saying that even what is perceived as a genuine spiritual revelation has to be scrutinized in the light of scripture. Now when I say even this, I know an intellectual understanding of scripture is insufficient for this. Yet there has to be some measure of one's experiences that is beyond the person. Otherwise, it can be deception time. I am sure a conversation over coffee would help clarify things, but obviously we cannot probably do that. I am more curious though now what Candice's pastor is up to, and why he won't share more. I guess it wasn't all I had to say.

Frankly, Candace's pastor may or may not fully appreciate what we are discussing when it comes to existential Christianity and the potential the approach has to help folks find their way through a very confusing world...

[Lori Smith]

Aldo,

I want to thank you for taking so much time to explain your perspective. I think you will really help people understand what existentialism is. I wondered if you and I believed the same things but described them differently. Now I see that you do indeed embrace existentialism and understand what it is. I must say that my own walk with Jesus is much different, but I am grateful to you for sharing with us how you perceive things.

Blessings to you.

[aldo]

Aldo,

 

I don't suspect anyone has a problem with what you are saying right here. Most Christians who are spiritually minded understand that mere head knowledge of the Bible does not produce any true fruit. Christ does have to be formed in us for us to be changed and to be able to impart those truths to others. I guess it is possible some of us here are not familiar enough with the finer points of CE, but it seems to me the same ideas can be conveyed in simpler terms, even the Bible's own terms. It could be just me, but various theological systems usually seem to complicate what is already clear in the Bible. Sorry, I am not trying to get at you here; just saying probably a lot of us here are not going to get it (the system as it is presented), whereas they do have a relationship with the Holy Spirit. We may or may not, be saying the same thing about God revealing Himself to us. Like you, I believe experience is very important, to the degree that I do not have much tolerance for strivings and contentions over doctrinal stuff or the latest pet trends in the church. But I hope you are saying that even what is perceived as a genuine spiritual revelation has to be scrutinized in the light of scripture. Now when I say even this, I know an intellectual understanding of scripture is insufficient for this. Yet there has to be some measure of one's experiences that is beyond the person. Otherwise, it can be deception time. I am sure a conversation over coffee would help clarify things, but obviously we cannot probably do that. I am more curious though now what Candice's pastor is up to, and why he won't share more. I guess it wasn't all I had to say.

 

In my refelctions, things at the heart are very simple and straight forward. I start with doing it... seeing it, hearing it, feeling it, thinking it, saying it ... doing it. It is Christ. It is simple to start to follow Christ... for example

 

put on Christ's eyes.. what do you expererince? what did you see? is it different? Is it better? Does it work?

put on Christ's ears.. what do you expererince? what did you hear? is it different? Is it better? Does it work?

put on Christ's different feelings.. what do you expererince? what did you feel? is it different? Is it better? Does it work?

put on Christ's mind.. what do you expererince? what did you think? is it different? Is it better? Does it work?

 

If the world I experience is different, and if it works better then I should prefer that world. If we choose that walk, then God who is in us, as Christ, is lfted within and draws us to him, by God's grace.

 

I have seen people like that ... they were so-called 'saints' and many had no schooling to speak of. But they walked humbly before God and illuminated my life. I find, when I try to follow ... things are right.

 

If folks want to talk, we can do that after we walk....

[aldo]

Aldo,

I want to thank you for taking so much time to explain your perspective. I think you will really help people understand what existentialism is. I wondered if you and I believed the same things but described them differently. Now I see that you do indeed embrace existentialism and understand what it is. I must say that my own walk with Jesus is much different, but I am grateful to you for sharing with us how you perceive things.

Blessings to you.

Thank you Lois... There are many lost people in our world, especially young people. It is my hope that if the usual approaches have not worked, that some seekers may find this venue of use... perhaps its something I am setting down for my grandchildren...