Spiritual Experience = Truth

[No Nicolaitans]

Modern-day "prophets", word of knowledgists, et al...

...proclaim that a "spiritual experience" equals truth regardless of God's word. They place whatever "spiritual experience" they experience above God's word. After all, "it" happened to them, so it must be true, and it must be of God...even when their "experience" opposes God's word.

We have an entire movement that is experience-based. They want to experience God. They want to witness a miracle. They want to have a "feeling". They want a manifestation.

We have an entire movement that exalts temporal feelings and experiences over faith. In their quest to "experience God", they will open themselves up to all kinds of false doctrines that will deliver the experience. It's truly sad, because faith is what pleases God.

Does experience equal truth; therefore, it takes precedence over (and has more authority than) God's word?

Peter had a true spiritual experience...he saw the Lord Jesus Christ transfigured, and he heard the voice of God. Yet, while recounting that experience in 2 Peter 1, he said this...

2 Peter 1:19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

While Peter's experience was true and genuine, he placed God's word above his experience.

Do you recall what the third commandment is?

Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Sounds like God's name is important to him, doesn't it? Do you realize that God magnifies his word above his name?

Psalms 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Yet, we have an entire movement that exalts and magnifies "experience" over God's word?

The Israelites "experienced" God more than anyone. They experienced God day-after-day for forty years...they saw the miracles, they saw the manifestations...they experienced it. Yet God said...

Numbers 14:11
And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

Despite the experiences, they didn't believe God...they didn't have faith...and faith is what God wanted. He wanted them to believe; he wanted them to believe his word. All the experience did was cause them to believe the experience, and when they didn't experience God, they complained...like many in today's movement. When they don't "experience" God, they get dissatisfied.

Can a child of God have a spiritual experience? Sure he can...

He can experience heartfelt repentance. He can experience the joy of the Lord. He can experience heartfelt sorrow for those who are lost...etc.

A person's spiritual experience doesn't determine truth separate from God's word. A person's spiritual experience doesn't usurp God's word. A person's spiritual experience doesn't take precedence over God's word, and a person's spiritual experience that opposes God's word isn't an experience from God.

A true and biblical spiritual experience will be one that is a result of hearing or reading God's word.

One final thought...

Can a child of God have a supernatural experience with God? Yes, but it depends upon your meaning of "supernatural". God still performs miracles in people's lives today; however, God has plainly stated that it's faith that pleases him...faith in his word...not faith in experiences.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

 

 

 

Experiences will cause you to put your faith in experiences. That's what this whole "experience" movement is about. Experience, experience, experience.

Do you want to experience God? Do you want something tangible? You already have it...you can hold it in your hands. God wants you to put your faith in his word.

 

 

[No Nicolaitans]

Montanism didn't die out in the 2nd century...

[Ukulelemike]

I have an old Navy friend who, after leaving the Navy, got into meth, then got off and was born again, and sadly, he is of this type. To him, experience=Holy Spirit, and he believes that trumps scripture every time. And of course, when I tell him that scripture is so important so that we can know when it is the Spirit moving, or just A spirit, he shrugs it off as 'I know the Spirit" sort of thing. In other words, to him, he has no need to verify the movement of the a spirit, whether its from God, even though the Bible tells us to do that very thing. Sort of drives you nuts after a while.

[Invicta]

Montanism didn't die out in the 2nd century...

Aherm.  The Trail of Blood booklet lists the Montanists as true Baptists.

[No Nicolaitans]

Aherm.  The Trail of Blood booklet lists the Montanists as true Baptists.

Categorization from a booklet does not a Baptist make. 

Montanists were heretics in my view...but that's me. 

[No Nicolaitans]

Aherm.  The Trail of Blood booklet lists the Montanists as true Baptists.

Okay, let me first say that I'm familiar with "The Trail of Blood". Next, let me say that I've also looked at "The Trail of Blood". Finally, let me say that the amount of time that I spent looking at "The Trail of Blood" was less than one minute...and that's being generous. 

Now that THAT is out in the open, I have to ask why the Montanists were included as Baptists (or the Baptist lineage) in "The Trail of Blood".

Was it simply because they baptized by immersion? There are main-line denominations that baptize by immersion, but they're certainly not Baptists.

Surely they weren't included as "Baptists" for their doctrinal beliefs!

Knowing that Montanists are included in "The Trail of Blood" kind of makes me glad I never spent much time looking at it.  

[No Nicolaitans]

If the Montanists were Baptists, then I guess Perry Stone is a Baptist!  

Okay...I've had my fun. I'll lay off the joking now...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe...

[MikeWatson1]

Cross reference the Trail of Blood with books like The Battle for Baptist History from I.K. Cross and Churches in the Valley of Peidmont.. then you get the full picture.

The Trail of Blood is more of a summary.. doesn't go into great depth.. but from what I have read so far it is not inaccurate.. just a broad brush.

[John81]

The whole idea that "there have always been Baptists", that John the Baptist was the first Baptist, that the Apostles were Baptists, the first church (and then churches) were Baptist, and there is a line of Baptist churches from then to today (except they all used different names) is false.

Nothing in Scripture points to Christians needing to draw an unbroken line between themselves and the Apostles. Many have tried to do so as a counter to the claims of the RCC that they are the one true church directly come from the Apostles and having existed since then.

Trying to claim that dozens of different groups of Christians, known by various names, were actually Baptists even though they were not known as Baptists is stretching things to the point of absurdity. Those claimed to have been Baptists were all known by other names, all or most held to views most Baptists here would disagree with.

Were the English, Germans and French of the 1300s actually Americans since so many Americans stem from them and in some cases had things in common? No, and the same holds true for those various groups of Christians which existed prior to Baptists.

It's not the name "Baptist" that's important, it's the following of Christ. As we know from history and our current times, all Baptists, whether in America or around the world, are not one and the same. Even tracing the history of actual Baptists we see there have been several "branches" of Baptists with various doctrinal views.

Why waste time trying to copy the RCC and proclaim Baptists as having an unbroken line of Apostolic authority? Scripture doesn't call for such. Scripture says Christians will be known for following Christ and those around will know true Christians by their love for one another.

If we have a good Baptist church praise God for we are linked to God through Christ; not some timeline of Apostolic succession.

[Invicta]

Okay, let me first say that I'm familiar with "The Trail of Blood". Next, let me say that I've also looked at "The Trail of Blood". Finally, let me say that the amount of time that I spent looking at "The Trail of Blood" was less than one minute...and that's being generous. 

Now that THAT is out in the open, I have to ask why the Montanists were included as Baptists (or the Baptist lineage) in "The Trail of Blood".

Was it simply because they baptized by immersion? There are main-line denominations that baptize by immersion, but they're certainly not Baptists.

Surely they weren't included as "Baptists" for their doctrinal beliefs!

Knowing that Montanists are included in "The Trail of Blood" kind of makes me glad I never spent much time looking at it.  

I am not saying TOB is right in that, I think thay were absolutely wrong.  I did question this with a TOB supporter and he said they baptised those coming from other churches, so they must be baptists.  But then the other churches rebaptised ex Montanists. 

I have a little booklet on Montanism which is an extract from a book by E de Pqressense.  He says he places Montanism among the Judaising heresies.  Montanism he says like all ascetic doctrines enters its strongest protest against the union of the sexes.  Originally against second marriage but later denounces marriage altogether.  Tertullian, who became a Montanist, when writing on the subject contents himself with quoting scripture when can make it sustain his view, but when dealing with the exact texts of St Paul, appeals to the higher power of the Paraclete. Montanism was the first to teach different types of sins Venial and Mortal, a doctrine later adopted by the RCC.

 

[Invicta]

Augustine (of Canterbury, not of Hippo, I'll call the former Austin to distinguish them)  Austin, is said to have baptised 10,000 in the River Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent.  The Swale is only a mile or so from here and if stand up I can see it from my window.  It is not actually a river but a channel between Kent and the isle of Sheppey.  Austin is also said the have Baptised 10,000 in the river Swale in Yorkshire including the king of Northumbria.   Following TOB reasoning he might have been a true Baptist.  However when he met the king of Wales, who refused to be converted, Austin slew 1000 of his followers showing that he was a true Catholic.

[No Nicolaitans]

I am not saying TOB is right in that, I think thay were absolutely wrong.

 

I'm sorry Invicta. Let me assure you that I didn't think you were saying the TOB was right. I was only quoting you, because you brought it into the discussion. Though I realize it appears that I was directing my responses toward you, I was actually responding to "The Trail of Blood"...if that makes sense.

[MikeWatson1]

The whole idea that "there have always been Baptists", that John the Baptist was the first Baptist, that the Apostles were Baptists, the first church (and then churches) were Baptist, and there is a line of Baptist churches from then to today (except they all used different names) is false.

Nothing in Scripture points to Christians needing to draw an unbroken line between themselves and the Apostles. Many have tried to do so as a counter to the claims of the RCC that they are the one true church directly come from the Apostles and having existed since then.

Trying to claim that dozens of different groups of Christians, known by various names, were actually Baptists even though they were not known as Baptists is stretching things to the point of absurdity. Those claimed to have been Baptists were all known by other names, all or most held to views most Baptists here would disagree with.

Were the English, Germans and French of the 1300s actually Americans since so many Americans stem from them and in some cases had things in common? No, and the same holds true for those various groups of Christians which existed prior to Baptists.

It's not the name "Baptist" that's important, it's the following of Christ. As we know from history and our current times, all Baptists, whether in America or around the world, are not one and the same. Even tracing the history of actual Baptists we see there have been several "branches" of Baptists with various doctrinal views.

Why waste time trying to copy the RCC and proclaim Baptists as having an unbroken line of Apostolic authority? Scripture doesn't call for such. Scripture says Christians will be known for following Christ and those around will know true Christians by their love for one another.

If we have a good Baptist church praise God for we are linked to God through Christ; not some timeline of Apostolic succession.

It's true that it is pretty much impossible to trace God's churches through an unbroken line in history, but it is also true that the New Testament churches had a particular doctrine and order faith and that not every church calling itself a church is one that follows after this pattern.

The churches that truly follow this pattern have historically been 'baptist' churches. Eg... no infant baptism, baptism by full immersion of believers only, belief the bible is the Word of God,salvation by grace thru faith in Christ.. independence and autonomy of the local church, belief in one triune God.. etc..

There are now other different named churches that would believe these things.. but it was the 'baptists' that had it first. 

You are right though that the early churches didn't have the name 'baptist', except I have heard some were given the name 'ana-baptist' and 'baptist' as an insult.

But calling the apostles baptists and john the baptist a baptist etc...  seems strange.. unless you think about what a true baptist church believes and then consider that their pattern of faith and order is the same as the first churches.

There is no absolute line of succession it is true.. but there is a thread that starts and then goes underground and then pops up all through history of God's churches.  Not every church that calls itself one of God's... is His.