Someone told me the other day about some course that he attended, it was a deliverance course that keeps on for months if not for years, my question is how long will the church still be ingaged with this kind of trash that leads to little if not to nothing. When will we discover the Christ in the letter and not the letter in the Christ. Nowhere do I read in scripture about long sessions of counselling and deliverance, I belief it is because we are still busy with the spiderweb but we need to kill the spider.

God help us as the church that we will get back to basics, Christ in you the hope of Glory!

Regards.

Chris.

My purpose in pointing out the specific example of Peter is to emphasize the impact of the experience he had. There are other areas also where Paul quotes scripture and then blatantly contradics it! I’ll reserve that example for another time.
Suffice to say that my intention was to point out the reality and authority of encounter that they had with God and that such encounters are just as available to us.
It seems that the specific concern you have (and it’s not just you) is that this approach could lead some into spiritual experiences that are not scriptural. And that is possible. However, have you ever considered the outcome of the docmatic statements you made above? I have no doubt that you experience God beyond the confines of those statements, so this is not an attack on your relationship with Him, but a challenge to how you communicate it.

If you can read your comment again with this question: Does this inspire encounter with Father. Do these statements awaken love for God and His Truth. Does it introduce one to the liberty of friendship with Him, or does it restrict one’s encounter to the letter that kills? Admittedly, you did not write for that purpose, but rather to point out potential problems with what I wrote.

My point is this: I can encourage real spiritual encounter with Father, and risk that some will become vulnerable to deception.
The alternative is much more destructive! How many people are nutralised in lifeless religion. The ‘letter’ does kill.
To simply re-state the docmatic principels of ‘How to approach the Bible’ or how the ‘Canon’ of scriptures came to be etc…. will continue to produce a boring, religious, worthless and ultimately destructive ‘christian’ experience. Do you think that makes people any less vulnerable to deception? I don’t think so. I am confident that if one loves the truth, God will lead you into all truth.

One can turn the question around and say how do we differ from any of the religious leaders from the past who commited murder and other evil acts, yet their doctrine was as orthodox as it gets! I think the statement that we do not need to seek revelation because God has already shown the Apostles everything, is sad. Father does not desire a second hand relationship with us – just as ridicilous as it would be for me to communicate to my son via my daughter. I desire direct relationship with each of my children.

At the end we need to look beyond the mere words and understand one-anothers hearts. At that level I know we will come to appreciate that we have much more in common with one another than our different ways of communicating would suggest.

Your last statement shows how much we do have in common: “It is not the one or the other, it is both and.”

Andre

Andre

“Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; But a man of understanding will draw it out.”

Tradition teaches mostly to fear drawing out our heart. It tells us only that our hearts are deceitfully wicked and we must come to them (traditional leaders) for revelation…not our hearts.

I read the linked earlier posts dealing with scripture and truth.

It is interesting that Jesus defined scripture as the psalms, the law & the prophets. Like you said, it is highly unlikely that any of the writings of the New Testament were ever thought of as scripture by their authors. To me the New Testament writings are commentaries on the fulfillment of scripture by the “Word became flesh”.

Long before he laid down earth’s foundations, he had us in mind, had settled on us as the focus of his love, to be made whole and holy by his love.”

I have always wondered at how He transcends time, a mere product of His own creation and how, in Christ, He made a covenant not with us but with Himself, the “I am”, leaving us out of the solution for our miserable predicament and revealing that Love covers a multitude of sin….and not only covers it but removes it and the standard by which we judge it.

“don’t judge from the narrowness of your own experience but in the largeness of the Father”.

Wonderful statement. If the heaven of heavens cannot contain God, how can my pitiful experiences reveal Him. He is so much more than what any of us perceive from our own experience.

“The end of this big love story is of a triumphant God, not of a defeated God who has to live with the knowledge that most of the ones whom He loves are separated from Him forever. The bigger plan, His eternal purpose, is to have mercy on all. And He is not just willing, but … unfortunately, not able. No! I exclaim with Paul: “Oh, how inexhaustible are God’s resources and God’s wisdom and God’s knowledge!” He is well able to accomplish all His purpose.”

Amen! Amen! Amen Andre!

I so relate to your writings and I am pleased that I have found them as you are so skilled at verbalizing what is in your heart….much better than I.

Thanks for sharing Christ with us.

I plan on linking to this post.

2. Jesus taught the disciples explicitly that the Gentiles were included, but they were a bit slow to catch on. It is, therefore, not as if what Peter received was entirely new. I do agree that it was new in terms of the vision that he saw and the eating of unclean animals.

3. Peter was dispensationally in error, because he did not discern that that which was indeed God’s will at a certain time in the history of Israel was now fulfilled in Christ. We cannot be in that situation today, because we live in a time after the completion of the canon and the complete revelation of God’s will with regards to His church (Jew and Gentile included in one Body by virtue of the unity of the Spirit) has already been revealed. You have to compare apples with apples or else you will reach the wrong conclusions.

4. God confirmed to Peter that His vision was accurate when Peter experienced the inclusion of the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius. Hence there had to be a an objective confirmation of what he experienced.

5. The same Peter who received this vision had to be rebuked by Paul later in his life. The fact that he received a ‘revelation’ did not make him infallible in terms of the application of what he received.

6. I agree and disagree with your statement that encounter should determine theology. The main aim of theology is the objective testing of truth. Theology must test encounter, but should never restrict encounter to the point where it hinders that which God wants to reveal to us from the Scriptures.

7. Please do not misunderstand me; I am not saying that we cannot receive new light from the ancient Scriptures, but I am saying that we have to stick to the Bible’s own statements about the way we should arrive at truth. The Bible places a very high premium on systematic truth (‘doctrine’). It is impossible to read 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus and reach any other conclusion.

8. Even though Peter and Paul experienced divine encounters and revelations concerning God’s NT economy there was still a need for feedback from the Body of Christ, as witnessed in Acts 15.

Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

9. This way of receiving new light (Peter in Acts 10) is not the norm, but the exception; especially in the context of what happened in the book of Acts. Both Peter and Paul had to have unusual experiences in order to ‘change their theology’, as it were.

10. The first meaning of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 is in reference to revelation given to the apostles and secondarily of illumination given to saints on the basis of that which was revealed to the apostles. In Eph. 3 we are told in effect that we do not need to seek revelation, because Paul and the apostles already received all the revelation we need. The Word of God is complete! All we need is illumination and this comes by primarily by reading (Eph. 3:4), searching (Acts 17:11), studying (1 Tim. 2:15 ) and pondering the written revelation (Jas. 1:25) with a focus on Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2, Col. 3:16, Heb. 1:1-3). In Acts 2:42 it is clear that the early church fully submitted to the apostles’ doctrine and in Col. 4:6, 1 Thes. 5:27 and 1 Tim. 4:13, when there were written material on NT revelation available, believers were exhorted to focus on the written revelation.

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words,
4 whereby, when you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ;

Act 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Col 4:16 And when this epistle has been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that you also read the epistle from Laodicea.

1Th 5:27 I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren.

1Ti 4:13 Till I come, give heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching.

Also consider:

Act 17:11 And these were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see if those things were so.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

Job 23:12 I have not gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have treasured up the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.

Psa 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies [are] my meditation.

A Few Questions to Consider:

1. Should one test a ‘revelation’ based on encounter, at all?
2. How do you know that your ‘revelation is in fact accurate?
3. What is the purpose of an objective, measurable standard of truth if it is not meant to test ‘revelation’, intuition, experience, etc.
4. Should we submit our ‘revelation’ to the rest of the Body of Christ if aspects of it is revolutionary and contrary to everything that is and has been taught by evangelical Christianity, including names like Andrew Murray, Watchman Nee, Austin Sparks, A.W. Tozer; deeper life teachers who undoubtedly experienced the reality of ‘revelation knowledge’. Should one be teachable and willing to submit your novel views in humility to other believers? Is it plain wrong to submit your ‘revelations’ to other believers for corporate discernment?
5. What is the difference between your approach to truth / knowing (epistemology) and that of the Roman Catholic Church with their doctrine of apostolic succession? In the current Apostles and Prophets Movement, for instance, there are hundreds of so called ‘apostles’ running around with various extra-biblical ‘revelations’.
6. Joseph Smith, Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy and various others all had ‘new revelations’ from the Scriptures and their ‘revelations’ led to what we know today as Mormonism, The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Science respectively. Do you think they submitted their subjective ‘revelations’ to the objective standard of the Scriptures?
7. William Branham became a law unto himself because he did not want to submit his ‘revelations’ to the rest of the Body. He ended up calling himself the seventh angelic messenger to the Laodicean Church Age.
8. Oral Roberts saw a 900 foot Jesus who told him that he has a limited period of time to raise $8 million to build a medical center or else he would die (he definitely did not want his theology to interfere with his ‘encounter’). He subsequently shared this with his television audience and raised $9.1 million. Eight years later the medical center closed down. What is wrong with this picture?
9. Benny Hinn often speaks of his communication with the deceased Kathryn Kuhlman, in complete disregard of the Bible’s warnings against this practice [Deut. 18:2b (‘necromancy’)]. He believes, however, that this is an encounter sanctioned by God and refuses to test this encounter in the light of the written Word. What, would you say, is wrong with Benny’s approach to truth?
10. What is God’s way of protecting His children against the deceptions of the angel of light – satan (2 Cor. 11:14)? Do you think your article will help Christians with discernment or hinder them?

Jesus said to the Sadducees:

Mat 22:29 …You err, not knowing the Scriptures (systematic truth) nor the power of God (Holy Spirit illumination and experience).

It is not the one or the other, it is both and.

Albert

(shimmies off down the dunes with a new TentStake in her hand)