Christianity: Religion vs socio-political movement

I think there's a problem with this line of reasoning and it comes back to the notion of relying purely on what we call "the Spirit of God". Obviously God doesn't lie and God isn't the author of confusion but we know the devil masquerades as an angel of light. If all we have is "God told me that..." how do we address the person who says "well God told me that..." with something totally different, even entirely contradictory? We're immediately into an argument of who is listening to which spirit and those typically go nowhere useful. Of course if one person heard "God tell them" sometimes that flatly contradicts Scripture one might hope that Scripture would triumph but in some of the ultracharismatic churches it seems "personal revelation" is sometimes (often?) considered to trump Scripture. At one church I attended for a time a guy actually got up during the open mic time and talked of how we have a civil mandate, even going as far as comments like "yeah, I know what the Bible says, but..." and I really struggled to interpret his overall message as being more than "Yeah, I know what Scripture says, but I met Bob Jones in an elevator this one time and he said something else". How do you address a situation where one regards an individual as being a mighty prophetic voice and another regards the same individual as being a false prophet?

If we are going into the world preaching the gospel and all we have to prove our claim that this Jesus dude rose from the dead is "I know it to be true because God said so" then what sets us apart from the people who claim there are unicorns at the end of their yard or that they saw Elvis kicking back with Bigfoot during their trip to the Rocky Mountains? If we can objectively prove that Jesus died and rose again, where does that take us? In and of itself it's clearly a remarkable event but how do we go about answering the question "OK, so Jesus rose from the dead, but how does that affect me today?" - lots of people say they believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and then live their lives in a way that makes non-Christians want nothing to do with them or their church.

I think that's the bit where we have to fall back on personal testimony. Paul presumably wasn't present to see the risen Jesus but does appear to have witnessed people who would rather die than deny their faith in the risen Jesus and then had his moment on the road to Damascus. None of us were there to see the risen Jesus, presumably few if any of us have had an experience like Paul's conversion, and yet hopefully all of us can do a "before - after" comparison to show that we have changed in some huge way since becoming Christians.

Truth is something that is there whether we realise it or not and whether we believe it or not. If I might cross-thread a little with an example from my home renovation, when I lifted the floor and the insulation over my bedroom I found a rogue cable that had just been cut off rather than being properly removed. The truth of the matter is that the cable had been there for years. It was there in 1980, it was there in 1990, it was there when I moved into the house. I just didn't know it was there. Me not knowing didn't change the fact it was there, and had I run a drill bit through it I could have suffered a nasty accident because truth (the fact it was there, and live) would trump my ignorance of its existence. When I discovered the cable no aspect of reality changed. The cable didn't change, truth didn't change, the fact the cable had been there for decades didn't change. All that had changed was that I had a better insight into my house and its quirks.

Now the truth is different. That piece of cable isn't in the space over my bedroom any more, it's coiled up in a box of scrap metal in my basement. I discovered the truth, I responded to the truth, and I made changes based on my newfound understanding of the truth. In doing so I made a change to reality. None of you reading this can prove whether or not I am telling the truth, and if I were to show you the piece of coiled up cable I couldn't objectively prove that it was ever in the space above my bedroom. In that regard you, the reader, need to decide whether you consider what I am saying to be credible. You'd ask yourselves the question of whether you've had cause to doubt what I say in the past, maybe whether I stand to gain by tricking you into believing something that isn't true, whether I might have been mistaken and therefore genuinely believe something that isn't actually true and so on.

In the same way we can discover truth in our lives but it makes little difference unless we respond to it. If I notice I left a window open in January I can understand why my heating bills are so so high but it doesn't help me unless I take corrective action and close the window. If I can conclusively prove that Jesus rose from the dead it achieves nothing unless I then answer the question "how am I going to respond to this?" and then actually respond to it. The response "Wow, awesome" doesn't change our lives. We become like the person who looks in the mirror and ignores what they see. If we respond to it then our experiences, even if they can't be objectively proven, nonetheless form part of our personal testimony. People we talk to can hopefully see a difference in the "before" and "after" versions of us. Those who didn't know us during the "before" stage should be able to see the fruit in our lives.

Scripture tells us to always be ready with an answer for the hope that is within us. That suggests we should expect people to ask about the hope that is within us. Perhaps if people have cause to ask us that speaks far louder than if we approach people at random with something like "hey, can I talk to you about some dude named Jesus?"

 

Unless it was comparable to Schrodingers box...

 

Yeah that too.

 

Well, in the analogy the cat was the wire, the ceiling would be the box. Your choice I guess.

 

I sometimes wonder if wires are either there or not there depending on whether I'm looking. But that's probably better suited to the "tango breaks his house" thread rather than this thread

 

Guiding =/= understanding =/= listening. Even in the NT we read of disagreement between those in the early church, so surely we're missing something about Jesus' statement (like, God isn't simply going to tell us everything).

 

For a long time I’ve taken those words to be for the apostles for the reason you pointed out. Christians have never been united. Even the epistles are corrective. So before the NT is written this isn’t being fulfilled if it’s about all Christians.

But beyond that, look at the whole sentence. Not only guiding but telling us of things to come. Was Jesus implying that the Holy Spirit would give all Christians knowledge of things to come? Seems apostolic to me.

 

I'm not sure I'm convinced it's purely apostolic, but even so, guiding to the truth is not telling you what that truth is outright. Could it be a statement solely for the Apostles? Sure, but what if it's also a statement for the church as a body? In that case, how do we know the guiding is complete, or anywhere near it? So, either it's Apostolic, or it's ongoing.

 

The statement says that whoever it is that is guided, the Spirit will guide them into all truth and will tell them of things to come.

I do have truth. And I’m sure the Holy Spirit has been responsible for what truth I’ve been guided into. But will any non-apostolic person be guided into all truth and be told things to come?

Today or in all of church history, I know not one, except apostles.

 

Agreed

 

Back to your thought here, ProDeo.

I found it interesting that you proposed the idea but then say you’re not eager to participate in it - unless there’s a typo or I misread.

But I don’t think it’s a bad idea on a small scale level. If you have a couple friends or small handful of friends to peacefully pursue an issue I have no doubt it would be beneficial. Would all agree? Maybe. Maybe not. There are good ways to pursue controversial issues. This is one. Everyone has to be humble enough to be willing to change their mind - which should always be our state.

 

Dani, most theologians speak of apostles in two senses. Often designated as Apostles and apostles. The word means “sent one” so in that minimalist definition almost any of us could be apostles or at very least maybe church planters. But the capitol “A” meaning those selected by Jesus to lay the foundation of the church. Theologians across the gamut agree on this. Reformed and not reformed. Charismatic and Pentecostal and not charismatic/Pentecostal. These apostles had access to revelation in a way other people did/do not.

In that sense of “Apostle” there are none in later centuries.

The only people today that I’ve seen refered to as apostles are kooky.

 

Apparently there are all sorts of flavors of apostles these days. There are even councils and coalitions of apostles. From what I can tell the way it works is that I say you're an apostle, you say I'm an apostle, so we form an exclusive little club of apostles and then decide who else is an apostle and therefore who else gets to join in. And the primary qualification appears to be that the prospective candidate has to be a kook.

 

And drive a real expensive car.