PDA

View Full Version : Experience vs. Argument



Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 06:09 PM
The President of the Bible College I attended once said the following:

The man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument.

What do you think? I added a poll here and purposefully made it black and white - either experience or argument. ;) I'm interested particularly in what you think when it comes to the Bible.

Yukerboy
Jan 30th 2009, 06:21 PM
The President of the Bible College I attended once said the following:

The man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument.

What do you think? I added a poll here and purposefully made it black and white - either experience or argument. ;) I'm interested particularly in what you think when it comes to the Bible.

I'll take argument over experience everytime.

Argument between those who study right or wrong (Calvin-Arminian, Pre-mid-post, old earth-young earth, evolution-creation) is Scripture based. Experience, even one that seems good, could be quite contrary to what Scripture states.

Ex.

"I've experienced it. I've seen Him do wondrous signs, great miracles even. I had cancer and he healed me. I know some say He's the antichrist, but so many have been helped by Him that He has to be the Savior." - Said by one who believes he has been saved during the great tribulation.

"If you were elect, you would not be deceived. Looks like that mark had to hurt." - Said by one of the tribulation saints.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 06:32 PM
So what if you experience something that you know to be from God but cannot explain or back up at that point in time, and somebody else comes along and begins to tear down your experience with arguments, even though you know your experience to be true (and there might be somebody out there to back up your experience with arguments, it's just that you at that point cannot)?

RabbiKnife
Jan 30th 2009, 06:46 PM
Your subjective experience is subject to your feeling, thoughts, analysis, all of which may be 100% wrong.

God's word is objective truth.

We do not know anything to be true, even our experience, unless it is supported, or at least not mitigated against, by the Word.

Experience is a terrible witness to truth.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 06:49 PM
Your subjective experience is subject to your feeling, thoughts, analysis, all of which may be 100% wrong.

God's word is objective truth.

We do not know anything to be true, even our experience, unless it is supported, or at least not mitigated against, by the Word.

Experience is a terrible witness to truth.
An argument can be equally flawed, however, by a person's bias due to a myriad of reasons. What's more, an argument is per definition biased because it comes from a person that is per definition biased. An experience, however, does not have that same problem. Of course experience needs to be supported. But just because somebody cannot support it at that point in time, doesn't mean their experience is trumped by another man's argument.

RabbiKnife
Jan 30th 2009, 06:50 PM
You misunderstand.

Man's argument is a non-starter in the issue.

The issue is not "what does another man say", but rather, "What has God already said."

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 06:52 PM
You misunderstand.

Man's argument is a non-starter in the issue.

The issue is not "what does another man say", but rather, "What has God already said."
With all due respect, my friend, you misunderstand my intention in starting the thread. I never said experience vs. what God has said but experience vs. argument - in other words, one person's experience vs. another person's argument. When one person comes with an experience, does the argument of another man trump his experience?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2009, 06:54 PM
Scripture judges man's doctrines; not man's doctrines standing in judgment of scripture... The interpreter doesn't set the meaning, divine inspiration through the writer does... So experience can give a false positive contrary to a scriptural truth.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 06:55 PM
Scripture judges man's doctrines; not man's doctrines standing in judgment of scripture... The interpreter doesn't set the meaning, divine inspiration through the writer does... So experience can give a false positive contrary to a scriptural truth.
On the other hand, an argument can come from an erroneous preposition and a bias that leads the person to a certain conclusion.

RabbiKnife
Jan 30th 2009, 06:57 PM
Then your initial argument is flawed.

The truth of your experience has nothing to do with what any man thinks, but it has everything to do with what God says.

Who cares what man says?

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 06:58 PM
I'll take argument over experience everytime.

Argument between those who study right or wrong (Calvin-Arminian, Pre-mid-post, old earth-young earth, evolution-creation) is Scripture based. Experience, even one that seems good, could be quite contrary to what Scripture states.

Good thing Paul took his experience over an argument! Else he would have rejected Christ.

Good thing Peter took his experience over argument, else he would have never went to see Cornelius.

Truth is what saves, not our imagined doctrine. God will use experience to change our false doctrine if we will let him.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 06:59 PM
Your subjective experience is subject to your feeling, thoughts, analysis, all of which may be 100% wrong.

The same thing can be said of ones subjective interpretation of scripture. The pharisees knew scripture inside and out and their argument sent them to hell. They rejected both the word of Christ and the experience of Christ.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2009, 07:00 PM
On the other hand, an argument can come from an erroneous preposition and a bias that leads the person to a certain conclusion.

Point understood... but unlike a resume, experience is not the measuring factor to a doctrinal truth...

IE 'you say it is this, I say it is that - and the reason I say it is that is because this is what happened', doesn't become the given that it must be a doctrinal truth. Tested against scripture will validate the experience as being a spiritual truth or a false positive....

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 07:00 PM
In a practical situation, it might matter a lot. A person might be newly saved with the experience of salvation and a newfound joy but unable to explain most of what has happened to him. An atheist comes along and explains it all away. Should the new believer doubt simply because the atheist has a better handle on the argument?

Of course you care what man says, because any one person could be the bearer of truth. You just need to compare what man says to what God says. It's very easy to say that it only matter what God says, but what does that really mean in reality? People have so many varying opinions and ideas about things!

tantejess
Jan 30th 2009, 07:00 PM
experience vs argument. i've given it some thought and i can't escape the feeling that this is comparing apples and pears (dutch expression). why would one choose one over the other when both can be inspired by the Lord, ourselves or others?

i can't choose. je m'excuse.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 07:02 PM
Point understood... but unlike a resume, experience is not the measuring factor to a doctrinal truth...

If your experience does not match your doctrine, something is wrong. Scripture says "you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free". As we learn right doctrine, our experience should confirm it. On the other hand, God used experience in scripture to change men's wrong doctrine. He did it with Peter and with Paul.

ServantofTruth
Jan 30th 2009, 07:06 PM
experience vs argument. i've given it some thought and i can't escape the feeling that this is comparing apples and pears (dutch expression). why would one choose one over the other when both can be inspired by the Lord, ourselves or others?

i can't choose. je m'excuse.

Any experience has to be inline with scripture, to be validated as from God.

I voted arguement, for the same reason as a previous posted. I took it to mean God's stated position in the bible.

The whole question is too lose. SofTy.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 07:13 PM
Any experience has to be inline with scripture, to be validated as from God.

I voted arguement, for the same reason as a previous posted. I took it to mean God's stated position in the bible.

The whole question is too lose. SofTy.
Even if you take it that way - which is not how I intended it - I still do not understand how you can then say God's argument holds more weight than God's experience! An argument can be just as biased and flawed as an experience - that in itself is not an answer to the question.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 07:16 PM
Any experience has to be inline with scripture, to be validated as from God.

I voted arguement, for the same reason as a previous posted. I took it to mean God's stated position in the bible.

The whole question is too lose. SofTy.

Paul took argument over experience till he had the experience on the Damascus road. Had he continued in his argument, that he thought was truth, he would have rejected Christ, who is the real Truth.

Dani H
Jan 30th 2009, 07:29 PM
I'm going to have to go with experience.

I concur that our experience should be readily verifiable against Scripture and objective truth. Otherwise, we stand in danger of falling off into flakiness and building on sand instead of rock. Too many go after experiences and chase down one meeting after the other instead of rooting and grounding themselves. So, no argument there.


But

So very often, when you really start drilling it down, people with arguments have no reality except theory, which at the end of the road, amounts to nothing. Christianity is doing and living and walking, and more doing, and serving and more serving after that. Practical and real, that is our God. Any argument that doesn't stand the test against reality and daily living is useless to me, quite frankly, no matter how profoundly logical and well researched it may be. I don't live in anyone's head. I live in the real world, with a real God who is really there to help me and who really expects me to treat others in a certain way.

I see people going around and around and around debating, and completely forgetting to love one another. So what good does a solid argument and a bunch of head knowledge do you when you can't carry out a simple commandment in all your argument presentations? I've been driven away from other forums as well as real life groups due to people with bunches of head knowledge mistreating one another because knowledge puffs up but love edifies.

So yea, I take door A please, Alex. ;)

tantejess
Jan 30th 2009, 07:30 PM
I don't want to misquote history, but there are people who had strong atheist views and based on studying the Word of God only, became believers - C.S. Lewis.

I tend to lean towards argument... because what happens when experiences fade. what's the foundation you stand on when there's no experience? will faith last or do we hunt for the next experience? let me just say I prefer argument over experience, but I am hungry for experience. it's just not what matters in the end.

does that better answer the poll-question, pilgrim?

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 07:36 PM
I don't want to misquote history, but there are people who had strong atheist views and based on studying the Word of God only, became believers - C.S. Lewis.

I tend to lean towards argument... because what happens when experiences fade. what's the foundation you stand on when there's no experience? will faith last or do we hunt for the next experience? let me just say I prefer argument over experience, but I am hungry for experience. it's just not what matters in the end.

does that better answer the poll-question, pilgrim?
Faith, however, is not a rational thing; it is something that pervades our whole being. If something we believe is true - like Dani Hansen said - we are going to experience it in every day life as well. And then just because we cannot explain some experiences doesn't mean they aren't true! Faith is linked with experience as much as it is with a rational argument.

ServantofTruth
Jan 30th 2009, 07:37 PM
Actually I disagree. Paul's experience alined totally with the scripture he was an expert in. It made it clearer than it had ever been. Otherwise he would have preached Jesus, against his arguements of scripture or rejected the experience as not from God, but of the flesh/ or the devil.

God's arguement/ the scriptures never changed. Paul's training was just wrong obviously. Man's teaching, not the scriptures.

The problem here is are we talking of God's arguement or man's interpretation? When I read the scriptures I am getting nearly 99% God's Will? When I use study books, a group or even start thinking myself - all I can do is move away from God's inspired Word. SofTy.

threebigrocks
Jan 30th 2009, 07:47 PM
So what if you experience something that you know to be from God but cannot explain or back up at that point in time, and somebody else comes along and begins to tear down your experience with arguments, even though you know your experience to be true (and there might be somebody out there to back up your experience with arguments, it's just that you at that point cannot)?

My take on it is this:

One cannot teach, hence argue, revelation of the Spirit.

We can have the best laid out supporting scripture, beyond the shadow of a doubt for something we have been given - but it can mean absolutely nothing if someone else hasn't in the very least had a foundation laid for what you understand.

There are a great many things I don't post on here simply because it's revelation. It probably wouldn't mean anything to a great majority and get torn to pieces. Since revelation of the scripture is built on our own experience, piece by piece, it can be difficult if not impossible at times to relay that same message to another person.

threebigrocks
Jan 30th 2009, 07:49 PM
Faith, however, is not a rational thing; it is something that pervades our whole being. If something we believe is true - like Dani Hansen said - we are going to experience it in every day life as well. And then just because we cannot explain some experiences doesn't mean they aren't true! Faith is linked with experience as much as it is with a rational argument.

And that is a a well said explanation as well.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2009, 07:54 PM
If your experience does not match your doctrine, something is wrong. Scripture says "you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free". As we learn right doctrine, our experience should confirm it. On the other hand, God used experience in scripture to change men's wrong doctrine. He did it with Peter and with Paul.

Hi Mark,

You gotta go back and reread what I wrote... to the question does experience trump an argument... my comments were that scripture sets and thus judges our doctrine; experience should not set our doctrine.... Didn't say that experience wasn't included, for if according to scripture, confirms... But experience without sound doctrine can give a false positive.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 08:01 PM
Hi Mark,

You gotta go back and reread what I wrote... to the question does experience trump an argument... my comments were that scripture sets and thus judges our doctrine; experience should not set our doctrine.... Didn't say that experience wasn't included, for if according to scripture, confirms... But experience without sound doctrine can give a false positive.
Hey RbG,

What I don't understand in your reasoning is that you seem to imply that sound doctrine is basically a matter of the mind, not the emotions. You seem to deem the rational more reliable than the experiential. I understand that you should deem it so, but I feel you are mistaken. The mind is just as easily misled as the emotions are, my friend; the rational can be mistaken just as much as the experience can be. But if I believe something to be true that does not prove itself to be true in every day life and in my experience, I would sooner say that my argument is flawed than to say that my experience is mistaken. Again, if I experience something that contradicts what I hold to be true, I would sooner question my rationally held argument than my experience.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2009, 08:11 PM
Faith, however, is not a rational thing; it is something that pervades our whole being. If something we believe is true - like Dani Hansen said - we are going to experience it in every day life as well. And then just because we cannot explain some experiences doesn't mean they aren't true! Faith is linked with experience as much as it is with a rational argument.

I'd like to offer this for consideration:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.


Faith doesn't see experience within the biblical definition...


So staying focused to the OP question...

BY faith we rely, depend, trust, hold, all actions that are present future. Experience looks backward, faith looks forward. Experience's bank account is zero; faith's bank account is overflowing. Defining experience with faith defines yesterday with tomorrow. This is why salvation isn't past, it's now and forever.

So biblical understanding frames sound doctrine; experience can either support or refute, confirm or mislead, and can be misinterpreted as being sound doctrine.... whereas the sum of the word is truth.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 08:13 PM
Actually I disagree. Paul's experience alined totally with the scripture he was an expert in. It made it clearer than it had ever been. Otherwise he would have preached Jesus, against his arguements of scripture or rejected the experience as not from God, but of the flesh/ or the devil.

He rejected Truth until he had an experience. Of course his experience is in line with Truth, but PRIOR TO his experience, his argument ruled his life. That's the point. He lived by argument and completely missed God. When he had his experience, he turned to Truth and it changed how he saw the scriptures.


God's arguement/ the scriptures never changed.

God's argument is not the one we are talking about. We are speaking of man's view of the scriptures. ;)


Paul's training was just wrong obviously. Man's teaching, not the scriptures.

Again, that's the whole point. Man's arguments can be wrong. He should be open to God leading him into truth through experience just as He did with Paul and Peter. IOW, God used an experience to correct Peter and Paul's argument.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 08:13 PM
I'd like to offer this for consideration:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.


Faith doesn't see experience within the biblical definition...

Did Paul's experience on the road to Damascus nullify his faith or give him faith?


So biblical understanding frames sound doctrine; experience can either support or refute, confirm or mislead, and can be misinterpreted as being sound doctrine.... whereas the sum of the word is truth.All the things you say above about experience can also be said about man's thinking concerning scripture. God's word is truth. However, all of us need an experience to understand His word. Until one is saved, he cannot know what salvation even means. Once he has experienced salvation, he then begins to understand what the scripture says concerning it.

It is not uncommon for God to first give an experience, and then give the word to teach what the experience meant.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 08:18 PM
Hi Mark,

You gotta go back and reread what I wrote... to the question does experience trump an argument... my comments were that scripture sets and thus judges our doctrine; experience should not set our doctrine.... Didn't say that experience wasn't included, for if according to scripture, confirms... But experience without sound doctrine can give a false positive.

Sound doctrine without experience is not sound doctrine. That's my point. ;)

The scriptures don't save. That was the error of the pharisees. They searched the scriptures thinking that in them they would have eternal life but they never heard God's voice. They never experienced His word in a life giving way.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2009, 08:20 PM
Hey RbG,

What I don't understand in your reasoning is that you seem to imply that sound doctrine is basically a matter of the mind, not the emotions. You seem to deem the rational more reliable than the experiential. I understand that you should deem it so, but I feel you are mistaken. The mind is just as easily misled as the emotions are, my friend; the rational can be mistaken just as much as the experience can be. But if I believe something to be true that does not prove itself to be true in every day life and in my experience, I would sooner say that my argument is flawed than to say that my experience is mistaken. Again, if I experience something that contradicts what I hold to be true, I would sooner question my rationally held argument than my experience.

Emotions are important, but trying to keep things simple.... I get very emotional knowing that God saved me from my sin, and there are times I cry with joy on the inside to tears on my check reading the truth of His word.

But here is what I am saying, scripture has one meaning, but to each reader, we interpret that meaning many differing ways.... When you find that one meaning, your doctrine is reshaped, conforming to the image of Christ, if you will... knowing that God has given you wisdom to know and understand more of who He is... pretty emotional experience to me....

So by test, here's a question about doctrine and experience....

Have you ever offered a fleece before God? If so, can you give detail how it relates to scripture. I would say most if not all folks who bring a fleece before God and have 'success' are not following scripture at all.... but justify it that it came to pass as they desired it to, thus it must be biblical.

Emanate
Jan 30th 2009, 08:20 PM
There is an old saying.

The fool does not learn from his mistakes.
A smart man learns from his mistakes.
A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 08:22 PM
Faith, however, is not a rational thing; it is something that pervades our whole being. If something we believe is true - like Dani Hansen said - we are going to experience it in every day life as well. And then just because we cannot explain some experiences doesn't mean they aren't true! Faith is linked with experience as much as it is with a rational argument.

Amen! What's rational about stepping out of a boat and walking on water? Or what's rational about saying "Silver and gold have I none but that which I have I give thee. Stand up and walk." It's completely rational in a spiritual sense but not to the natural mind. Until one experiences salvation, his mind's argument will deceive him.

Yukerboy
Jan 30th 2009, 08:23 PM
Experience says "I know it is of God", however experience doesn't "know", it is "believing" it is of God without actually knowing.

Arguement however, being Scripturally based, is definitively of God.

Now, the interpretation of that Scripture can be faulty, just as the interpretation of that experience can be faulty.

So, the original question of whether an argument trumps experience or vice versa is almost moot.

The reason I say almost is that experience has no guarantees of being of God. Even the 1st example I showed of one being deceived in the tribulation believed it to be of God and was wrong. The Scripture is guaranteed to be of God.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2009, 08:26 PM
Sound doctrine without experience is not sound doctrine. That's my point. ;)

How so? An example would be helpful.... For one does not have to experience killing a man to know that God calls it wrong [sound doctrine, right?]... so without experiencing it doesn't mean it's not sound doctrine ;)



The scriptures don't save. That was the error of the pharisees. They searched the scriptures thinking that in them they would have eternal life but they never heard God's voice. They never experienced His word in a life giving way.

You are going down a different path than what I have offered... point again is that doctrine trumps experience... Experience alone should not judge it as a doctrinal truth.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 08:38 PM
My take on it is this:

One cannot teach, hence argue, revelation of the Spirit.

We can have the best laid out supporting scripture, beyond the shadow of a doubt for something we have been given - but it can mean absolutely nothing if someone else hasn't in the very least had a foundation laid for what you understand.

There are a great many things I don't post on here simply because it's revelation. It probably wouldn't mean anything to a great majority and get torn to pieces. Since revelation of the scripture is built on our own experience, piece by piece, it can be difficult if not impossible at times to relay that same message to another person.
Very well said TBR!! One cannot argue with a revelation from the Spirit!

RabbiKnife
Jan 30th 2009, 08:38 PM
Faith is completely rational.

Faith is certainly not irrational.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 30th 2009, 09:34 PM
Faith is completely rational.

Faith is certainly not irrational.
Faith does not find its foundation in the rational but in the supra-rational, that which exceeds the rational. Faith arises when God reveals Himself to us from His spirit to our spirit. Revelation and Faith are two things that nobody can argue or rationalize themselves into; they come from our communion with the Most High God. This will definitely reveal itself in the mind, the rational aspect of our being. But it will also reveal itself in our experience, for when God reveals Himself and faith arises, experience will follow. Even more, revelation is in itself an experience!!

Now mind you, by experience I do not mean emotion. I do not mean that faith and revelation are emotional in nature or necessarily lead to emotions. On the contrary, when we walk in communion with God, the revelation of the Spirit will change us and lead to a new experience of life. Certainly it will also lead to a new understanding of His Word, but the reality of what God does in our lives and Who He is, is shown foremost in our experience.

Knowing God is not a rational process where the argument is primary; knowing God is a revelatory process where experience is primary. Rational understanding is merely a part of that experience.

RabbiKnife
Jan 30th 2009, 10:02 PM
God, who at various times and in various methods spoke in the past through the prophets, but in the last days, has spoken to us through his Son, the perfect revelation of God.

The revelation of God through Jesus Christ is recorded in a book, the Bible. Outside of the Bible, there is no objective revelation of God by which to test one's experience.

Our starting point for faith is rational, not irrational. The Christian faith is not an irrational faith, but instead, a rational response to objective evidence.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 10:20 PM
Experience says "I know it is of God", however experience doesn't "know", it is "believing" it is of God without actually knowing.

John says we can know. Paul knew his experience was from God but he didn't know much about God so he asked God who he was and God replied "Jesus". But Paul knew He was "LORD". His experience taught him that.

Look at it this way, all Calvinist say you must first be regenerated before coming to God and having faith. In other words, one must have an experience BEFORE one can have faith and understanding in the word according to Calvinist doctrine.


Arguement however, being Scripturally based, is definitively of God.

Not all argument is from God nor is it scripturally based. That is why God gave Peter and experience... in order to change Peter's argument.


The reason I say almost is that experience has no guarantees of being of God. Even the 1st example I showed of one being deceived in the tribulation believed it to be of God and was wrong. The Scripture is guaranteed to be of God.

Thing is, I see as many false arguments or more, than I see false experiences.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 10:22 PM
How so? An example would be helpful.... For one does not have to experience killing a man to know that God calls it wrong [sound doctrine, right?]... so without experiencing it doesn't mean it's not sound doctrine ;)

Have you experienced loving your neighbor? Then all your doctrine is moot. That's the point of 1 Cor. 13. If you have all knowledge (argument) but have not love (experience) you are as sounding brass and a tingling symbol. One had better have experienced God or his doctrine is either untrue or not believed. ;)



You are going down a different path than what I have offered... point again is that doctrine trumps experience... Experience alone should not judge it as a doctrinal truth.Yet, you would argue that a man must first experience regeneration before he can even have sound doctrine proving that experience trumps argument from a calvinist perspective. :cool: We don't find doctrine in experience. Neither do we find life in doctrine. Life is found when we experience doctrine.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 10:26 PM
The revelation of God through Jesus Christ is recorded in a book, the Bible. Outside of the Bible, there is no objective revelation of God by which to test one's experience.

Really? How did Paul get Jesus revealed to him? Is God so limited that he cannot save someone and reveal himself to someone through His Son outside of scripture? I personally have a friend that had a vision of Jesus and had no idea what his name was, but he knew him to be the Son of God. He got saved and knew he was the God of the bible but that's all. Upon reading the word, he found out the name of Christ and that what had happened to him was salvation.


Our starting point for faith is rational, not irrational. The Christian faith is not an irrational faith, but instead, a rational response to objective evidence.

It's an experiential faith. One must experience God through faith and be changed (an experience) and be born again (an experience).

Diggindeeper
Jan 30th 2009, 10:26 PM
My take on it is this:

One cannot teach, hence argue, revelation of the Spirit.

We can have the best laid out supporting scripture, beyond the shadow of a doubt for something we have been given - but it can mean absolutely nothing if someone else hasn't in the very least had a foundation laid for what you understand.

There are a great many things I don't post on here simply because it's revelation. It probably wouldn't mean anything to a great majority and get torn to pieces. Since revelation of the scripture is built on our own experience, piece by piece, it can be difficult if not impossible at times to relay that same message to another person.

TBR...you took the words right out of my mouth!

My simple way of putting it is like this: I can actually make the argument, and PROVE, that Jesus Christ was the leader of a bunch of horse thieves!
He simply TOLD them WHERE to go, to take it (Well, in reality, he preferred to steal donkeys.) :rolleyes: But His gang did precisely as He had told them to do!! he told them where to go to take the animals! And told them what to say if they got caught! :o

What I'm saying is...some may not know what they are talking about when they argue and argue and go on and on. Even though they may be quite apt at showing certain scriptures to back up their arguments!

On the other hand, we best be certain our "experiences DO, really, align with scriptures! (Plural!)

You see, if someone shares their experience telling me that they were at a meeting being held by some BIG Name Evangelist, and they KNOW they were in the presence of God because gold dust began to fall all around them....well! I sure would not catch the next plane to go to that mass meeting.

I offer that the gift of discernment is a major factor here. :amen:

Friend, you are talking to the voice of experience here. Years and years of experience... :rofl:

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2009, 02:35 AM
Have you experienced loving your neighbor? Then all your doctrine is moot.

That would be left to my neighbor to experience and me to follow in obedience.... which should be continual. :saint:



That's the point of 1 Cor. 13. If you have all knowledge (argument) but have not love (experience) you are as sounding brass and a tingling symbol. One had better have experienced God or his doctrine is either untrue or not believed. ;)

I think you want to make this into something this is not... you seem to lose the point that experience does not create your doctrines, but experiences need to be congruent with sound doctrine or it's a false doctrine.

I can't love my neighbor first by experience before God gives me that love to give.... So in confirming my comments, I can see that loving my neighbor as myself is good biblical doctrine and by doing so I can have experiences that support this doctrine.... Doctrine first, experiences folllow in support of the doctrine.

1 John 4:19 We love, because He first loved us.

My statement that you seem to keep missing is that experience without sound doctrine is just experience, not biblical doctrine



Yet, you would argue that a man must first experience regeneration before he can even have sound doctrine proving that experience trumps argument from a calvinist perspective. :cool:

No one, repeat no one can come to God unless they understand their need to come to God, that with ears given to hear and eyes given to see, they then can comprehend their sin and God's righteousness and respond intellectually then immediately with emotion.... And regarding a Calvinist perspective, I which you'd speak to the text and not to your stereotypes, for they paint false pictures of me based on your understandings....




We don't find doctrine in experience. Neither do we find life in doctrine. Life is found when we experience doctrine.

Interesting word twists... again, if you read what I been saying, I never stated that doctrine is not found within our experiences, my point is that experiences do cannot define our doctrines.


Doctrine is the Word of God and so I would disagree with your comments that we can't find life in the word, for that is the whole point!

godsgirl
Jan 31st 2009, 02:48 AM
I'll take both! :pray:

Brother Mark
Jan 31st 2009, 03:11 PM
That would be left to my neighbor to experience and me to follow in obedience.... which should be continual. :saint:

My point is that experience is obedience.



I think you want to make this into something this is not... you seem to lose the point that experience does not create your doctrines, but experiences need to be congruent with sound doctrine or it's a false doctrine.Correct... with slight difference. Peter's experience CHANGED his doctrine. Paul's experience CHANGED his doctrine. Those are two examples in scripture where God used experience to explain Himself. One needs more than just experience and that is why God gave us the scriptures. But argument without experience makes one a pharisee or saducee. It's way better to have a genuine experience than a genuine argument.


I can't love my neighbor first by experience before God gives me that love to give....Exactly. Until you experience God's love, you can't give God's love. That's my point in much of this.


So in confirming my comments, I can see that loving my neighbor as myself is good biblical doctrine and by doing so I can have experiences that support this doctrine.... Doctrine first, experiences folllow in support of the doctrine.After experiencing God's love, then you learn you are to love your neighbor the same way, then you experience loving your neighbor. It all starts with experiencing God first though.



1 John 4:19
We love, because He first loved us.

My statement that you seem to keep missing is that experience without sound doctrine is just experience, not biblical doctrineI hear you and I understand your point. I agree with it to a degree. But I can't get past Paul's entire doctrine changing because he had an experience.


No one, repeat no one can come to God unless they understand their need to come to God, that with ears given to hear and eyes given to see, they then can comprehend their sin and God's righteousness and respond intellectually then immediately with emotion.... And regarding a Calvinist perspective, I which you'd speak to the text and not to your stereotypes, for they paint false pictures of me based on your understandings.... The point is, that one must experience God first before doctrine can develop. My comments on Calvinist fit perfectly with the OP. I didn't give a stereotype intentionally. I meant to be fair in saying that Calvinist teach one must experience God (regeneration) before learning doctrine correctly. God gives ears to hear, then they hear doctrine. God gives eyes to see, then they see. So first they experience God, then they learn.


Interesting word twists... again, if you read what I been saying, I never stated that doctrine is not found within our experiences, my point is that experiences do cannot define our doctrines.We are close. I almost agree. But without experiences, there are many doctrines we can't understand. I see how Peter and Paul both needed an experience to correct their doctrines. Peter had a dream that defined his doctrine. Yet, it was supported in scripture and through the words of Christ. Peter was there when Jesus said "It's not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him but what comes out of his heart." Peter heard those words but still needed a dream about food to learn about how God cleans men. Even after hearing Jesus state eating something unclean didn't defile him, still Peter refused to eat. Until he had an experience.


Doctrine is the Word of God and so I would disagree with your comments that we can't find life in the word, for that is the whole point!Perhaps you misunderstood me. The bible is not what saves us! The Pharisees thought the bible would save them but it didn't. The bible speaks of Him who gives life! It testifies of God. It is God who saves. We read the bible in order to experience and know God. The Pharisees read it to know the bible and doctrine and argued over doctrine a good bit. But they never heard the voice of God (experienced him). They had an argument. The disciples had an experience. And that is the point of the whole thread IMO.

Grace and peace,

Mark

Brother Mark
Jan 31st 2009, 03:21 PM
Let me clarify something...

Matt 7:22-23
22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'
NASB

Here people put faith and trust in their experience of works and still missed God. They are false teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing, and false prophets. They saw the works of God yet never experienced God's work in themselves for he never knew them.

The pharisees knew the bible inside and out and worshiped it. For they thought it would save them.

John 5:36-40
37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 "And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life.
NASB

Jesus himself is saying here that the scriptures will NOT give someone eternal life. The pharisees are those that worshiped doctrine and never experienced God. They never experienced His voice. They were unwilling to come to Christ.

I have seen both camps in my lifetime. But this I know... one had better experience God personally or they are in big, big trouble. Neither group had a personal experience with God. One group saw experiences other people had and thought they were the reason those folks had them. God cast them into hell. The other group never had an experience and resisted the others that did. Yet, they studied the word and doctrine was everything to them. God cast them into hell.

Grace and peace,

Mark

threebigrocks
Jan 31st 2009, 04:37 PM
We are looking here (at this moment) at the experience, and experience is something that cannot be recalled unless it happened, obviously. It's action. Love and faith are not nouns, they are verbs. They are also action. So is prayer and reading scripture, it's something we do. Faith comes by hearing - also action and an experience. That moment that we heard and believed, that experience, that revelation that God is God.

We all experience how God works in our lives in an endless number of ways.

Argument on the other hand - no experience required. I can research for hours and hours and hours on a particular topic and present an argument for or against it. I don't have to care or have any belief about the topic, I just got the head knowledge that helps me make my point against the other guy. Debate teams do this all the time, because it's in the "sport" of proving yourself correct, coming up with the best argument. He who can be more convincing, wins.

Yet, we can have a combination of the two. Apologetics is a prime example. Thing is - if we argue beyond experience, beyond revelation, and rely on being more convincing because of the evidence we read it's no argument at all. Faith doesn't work that way. It's not of the physical world it's known, it's experienced (revealed) spiritually. It's more than showing supporting scripture, anyone can read through and do that. It's us, those in Christ, standing on what God has given us through experience and revelation and supported by the scriptures. Not scripture proving and understanding void of spiritual revelation.

So we meet, or we should, in our common experiences. The mutual understanding of experience, spiritual revelation, in Christ. Doesn't matter how much revelation we have in common what matters is not exceeding it for the sake being more right.

Esperanza32
Jan 31st 2009, 05:02 PM
Everyone has a unique faith story. But, for me, I would never have asked Jesus into my heart if I had not had a very real experience of Him.

(Wasn't the Bible written by people who had profound experiences of God???)

threebigrocks
Jan 31st 2009, 05:08 PM
Amen! Even if it's not profound for us - there was an experience! Something happened, something changed, in us. The Spirit doesn't quit doing that after our eyes are opened - He remains with us, giving further experience and revelation as long as we continue to seek and hear Him.

Yukerboy
Feb 1st 2009, 06:33 AM
John says we can know. Paul knew his experience was from God but he didn't know much about God so he asked God who he was and God replied "Jesus". But Paul knew He was "LORD". His experience taught him that.

Look at it this way, all Calvinist say you must first be regenerated before coming to God and having faith. In other words, one must have an experience BEFORE one can have faith and understanding in the word according to Calvinist doctrine.



Not all argument is from God nor is it scripturally based. That is why God gave Peter and experience... in order to change Peter's argument.



Thing is, I see as many false arguments or more, than I see false experiences.

Faith comes by experience or by hearing the argument (Word) for (of) Christ (God)?

When Paul and Peter and the rest preached the Gospel, did they wait for the people to have an experience or show them the Scriptures proving Jesus was the Christ?

Scripturally based argument will always, absolutely and beyond a shadow of a doubt, trump experience.

Yukerboy
Feb 1st 2009, 06:35 AM
BTW, no matter which way anyone goes on this debate, I really appreciate the OP on this. It was like a breath of fresh air. :)

Really enjoying the reading the thoughts on this thread.

tango
Feb 1st 2009, 11:55 AM
Coming in a little late, I voted experience trumps an argument, for the simple reason that when you have personally experienced something the argument that you cannot have done doesn't carry any weight, and as long as a person speaking is credible enough to be trusted a direct personal experience beats any thoughts of what theoretically might or might not happen.

For example, arguments like "God can't/doesn't heal people today, if he ever did" coming from a sceptic/atheist tends to fall flat when confronted with someone who has been miraculously healed.

Kudo Shinichi
Feb 1st 2009, 12:23 PM
Experience has advantage compare to argument which can be generated easily when you want to prove someone is wrong.

But experience needed someone else to be your witness to prove it was real though.

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=argument&qs_version=31
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=25&chapter=1&verse=16&version=31&context=verse

Walstib
Feb 4th 2009, 03:04 PM
But experience needed someone else to be your witness to prove it was real though.

Just to consider, I don't think you need another created person to have a second witness of an experience. ;)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.(Rom 8:14-17 NKJV)

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," (Heb 10:15-16 NKJV)


This thread has also made me think of this passage.

Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (Joh 3:10-12 NKJV)

We speak what we know and what we see. I would say the Gospel accounts, MML&J, are all about experience, and without them we would have little to form a biblical argument about what Jesus said. An argument itself is based on experience be it ours or someone else's.

Peace,
Joe