Christianity is NOT a Belief-system. Christianity is Christ

Western society, steeped in Aristotelian rationalism, always seeks a formulated and systematized ideology to adhere to. Christianity is not a belief-system, but the vital dynamic of the very Being of the person and life of Jesus Christ by the Spirit.

Allow me to retell the story of Guatama Buddha who lived some four hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. He was dying. Some of his devotees came to Buddha and asked how they should perpetuate his memory. "How should we share with the world the remembrance of you? How shall we memorialize you?" Buddha responded, "Don't bother! It is not me that matters, it is my teaching that should be propagated and adhered to throughout the world."

Does that seem self-effacing ­ a noble ideal to avoid ego-centricity? "Don't focus on me, just remember my teaching."

If Jesus Christ had said something like that, it would certainly legitimize what we see all around us in so-called "Christian religion" today. For "Christian religion" is the propagation of various understandings of Jesus' teaching as determined by various interpretations of the Bible. From what we observe in "Christian religion" today, it would appear that most who call themselves "Christians" must think that Jesus advocated the same thing that Buddha is alleged to have uttered.

Jesus Christ did not say anything like that! In fact, what Buddha said is contrary to everything Jesus taught, and everything recorded in the New Testament Scriptures. Jesus did not say, "Just remember My teaching." Jesus said, "I AM the way, the truth and the life." (John 14:6) "I AM the resurrection and the life." (John 11:25). Jesus Himself, the very Person and Life of Jesus Christ, is the essence of everything He came to bring to this world. Christianity is Christ!

Christianity is not just another religion propagating an ideology. Christianity is not just another religion remembering the teaching of its founder. Christianity is not just another religion reiterating the propositional tenets of its founder's teaching, and calling such "truth." Christianity is not just another religion demanding conformity to a particular "belief-system" or data-base of doctrine.

The essence of Christianity is Jesus Christ. All of Christianity is inherent in Jesus, His Person and His continuing activity. Christianity functions only by the dynamic of the risen and living Lord Jesus. Christianity is the function of the Spirit of Christ as He continues to live in Christians.

It is a sad state of affairs in what is passed off as "Christian religion" today. There is almost total failure to discern that the essence of Christianity is Jesus Christ Himself. The essence of Christianity is not a standardized belief-system. The essence of Christianity is not a consensus of doctrine. The essence of Christianity is not commonality of creeds. Jesus Christ is the essence of Christianity.

Where did "Christian religion" go off track into thinking that consenting to, confessing and conforming to doctrinal data was what Christianity was all about? When did this "Christian religion" develop the idea that Christianity is the acceptance of a correct and orthodox belief-system?

Christians today seem to be abysmally ignorant of church history. A quick review of church history will assist in answering the questions just asked:

Jesus did not come to bring new information about God, about salvation, about love, about eternal life. Christ came to be Life to all mankind. He came as God, as salvation, as love. He came to restore mankind to what God intended in creation, and that by functioning as God in man, the spiritual dynamic of life.

The redemptive mission to make His life available took place, historically, in a world that was dominated by Jewish and Greek thinking. The Jews wanted to put everything into the context of an organized religion with rules and regulations. The Greeks were influenced by Plato and Aristotle, and their abstract philosophical mind-set of metaphysics and logical patterns of thought.

So despite the clarity of Jesus' teaching, and the clear and simple record of the gospel dynamic of the life of Jesus Christ in the writings of Scripture by Paul, Peter, John, etc., these soon began to be interpreted in the contexts of religion and logical compartmentalization of human thought. The so-called "church fathers" of the first few centuries of Christianity had already reduced Christianity into moralistic and ethical religious rules and into creedalistic concepts of correct content of thought. They so quickly let go of the dynamic life of Jesus Christ as the essence of Christianity, and allowed it to become merely a belief-system.

The Roman Emperor, Constantine, solidified this static concept of Christianity even more in the early part of the fourth century. Constantine wanted to unify everything ­ government, economics, religion, "Christian thought", etc. He organized the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., bringing together these philosophically-based thinkers, theologians, to develop a rigid expression of "Christian belief." They compressed "Christian thought" into logical propositions of truth and orthodoxy and called it the "Nicene Creed," to which everyone who was called "Christian" was to give mental assent, or be regarded as a heretic.

By 325 A.D. Christianity had been perverted into a formulated and fixated belief system, demanding devotion to its doctrine. This process was progressively developed in the institutionalized Roman or Latin Church. T.F. Torrance refers to this epistemologically based rationalism as "the Latin heresy."1

Augustine lived and wrote in the century following the Nicene Council. His Augustinian theology, on which Calvin later based much of his theology, was extremely rationalistic, full of logical determinism with such ideas as strict divine predestination. Karl Barth referred to Augustinian theology as "sweet poison;"2 "sweet" because it emphasized the sovereignty of God; "poison" because it was a system of logical and theological determinism.

The Roman empire disintegrated in about 500 A.D. The seven hundred year period from 200 B.C. to 500 A.D. is known as the "Classical Period" of Greek and Roman thought patterns. The following five hundred years, 500 A.D. to 1000 A.D. are known as the Dark Ages or Middle Ages. All thinking was related back statically to the Classical Period. No new thinking was encouraged or allowed ­ Dark Ages indeed!

Thomas Aquinas appeared as the Renaissance Period was picking up steam, but his Thomistic theology just placed "Christian thought" in a tight scholastic stronghold of the Roman Church. The Church was regarded as the mediator of God's thought. "Believe as the Pope and the Church advocates, or face the consequences!" Many did!

During the Renaissance Period the thinking of "Christian religion" just followed along like a lap-dog to the philosophers and scientists of that day (as it has throughout most of its history.) Rene Descartes introduced Cartesian doubt, "I think, therefore I am." Rationalistic belief was the foremost criteria for being. Sir Isaac Newton developed ideas of deterministic causalism, and these were adapted into theology also.

In the sixteenth century the Reformation exploded with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others. It is called the "Reformation" because it re-formed the religious structures that existed in "Christian religion" at that time. But the birth of Protestantism did not restore the centrality of the spiritual dynamic of Jesus Christ. "Christian religion" was still regarded as essentially a "belief-system," but instead of a singular formulated and fixated belief-system in the Roman Church, it became multiple factious and fractious belief-systems competing with one another and beating on one another (both verbally and physically.) Disagreeing on every minute point of theology conceivable, they began to divide and sub-divide into denominationalized belief-system organizations, each believing that they had formulated and fixated their belief-system in accord with God's thinking. There were Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists and many others, all claiming to have the orthodox belief-system; all claiming to have figured-out what God, the "Great Theologue," believes, and supposedly demands that all His adherents likewise believe.

Obviously there was not any recovery of the dynamic understanding of Christianity in the Protestant Reformation. Gene Edwards concludes, "The Reformation was neither revival nor restoration. The Reformation was an intellectual brawl."3

In the next century, in 1611 A.D., King James of England authorized what became known as the Authorized Version, better known as the King James Version, of an English translation of the Bible. The "Christian religion" of that day was still engaged in competing belief-systems.

King James hired translators to translate the Bible into English. The word for "teaching" in the English language of King James' time was "doctrine." The King James Version refers to the word "doctrine" 56 different times. But languages evolve, and the meanings of words change. So it is with the word "doctrine." Looking at a contemporary English dictionary you will discover that although "doctrine" used to mean "teaching" or "instruction," that definition is now regarded as "archaic" or "obsolete." What does the word "doctrine" mean in contemporary English? Webster's Collegiate Dictionary reads: "Doctrine ­ a principle accepted by a body of believers or adherents to a philosophy or school; principles of knowledge or a system of belief." "Doctrinaire ­ dictatorial or dogmatic." "Indoctrinate ­ to imbue with a partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view or principle." Synonyms used for "indoctrinate" include "propagandize, program, brainwash, infect, instill, inculcate, etc." Is it any wonder that newer English translations tend to avoid the word "doctrine"? The New American Standard Bible, for example, uses the word "doctrine" only fourteen times, and even those are probably a carry-over of the traditionalism of ecclesiastical terminology. The Greek words, didache and didaskalia, should be consistently translated "teaching," except when reference is being made to "man-made doctrines" (Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:22; etc.)

In contemporary English language "doctrine" has come to mean "a traditional belief-system as interpreted and accepted by a particular group of people." "Doctrinaire" means "to dogmatically assert a traditional belief-system as interpreted and accepted by a particular group of people." "Indoctrinate" implies "to propagandize or brainwash others with this traditional belief-system as interpreted and accepted by a particular group of people."

Such a definition was most certainly not what the hearers intended when they listened to Jesus and "were astonished at His doctrine" (Luke 4:32 - KJV). They were not "astonished at His traditional belief-system," rather they were "amazed at His teaching" (NASB). The teaching of Jesus was the extending, the offering, the demonstration of Himself ­ His Life. His teaching was Life-teaching. The etymological root for the Greek word "teaching" had to do with "extending the hand" or "offering oneself." To demonstrate what is being taught; that is the way to teach Life!

The fundamentalism and evangelicalism that predominate in popular "Christian religion" in America today tend to key in on "doctrine" as belief-system. That may be the reason they often prefer to retain the King James Version, and interpret the use of the word "doctrine" throughout the New Testament as their particular brand of formulated and fixated belief-system. These religious doctrinarians continue to indoctrinate others and perpetuate the factious and fractious denominationalism of differing belief-systems. Americans, with their fierce individualism and concepts of personal freedom, have elevated denominationalism to an all-time high, a real "religious science", with thousands of religious denominations, divided by disputed doctrinal belief-systems. Those involved in "Christian religion" today still think that Christianity is essentially consent to a particular doctrinal belief-system.

This is, in fact, the definition of "fundamentalism," a grouping of people who has rigidly determined the "fundamentals" of their acceptable doctrinal belief-system. "Fundamentalism" is a word much used today. The newspapers and news reports are full of references to "Muslim fundamentalists" in Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.; "Hindu fundamentalists" in Sri Lanka; "Christian fundamentalists" barging at and bombing abortion clinics in the United States. Have you ever noticed that fundamentalists always fight? Why is that? They feel they have an obligation to defend the particular way they have stacked all of their doctrinal blocks in their belief-system.

The fundamentalist ­ "Christian religion" in general ­ has allowed doctrine, their belief-system, to become the supreme issue. "Doctrine" becomes their basis of fellowship, acceptance, security, bonding, etc. It is a tragic misrepresentation of the Church when the basis of our commonality is calculated by doctrinal agreement, rather than the indwelling Lord Jesus Christ; when uniformity of doctrine is the primary issue instead of unity in Christ. How sad when much of what is called "Christian preaching" is but tirades against so-called "heretics" who do not stack the doctrinal fundamentals of their belief-system just like we do!

Doctrine has been deified in "Christian religion" today. Doctrine has become their "god." It is a gross form of idolatry when one's properly-aligned stack of doctrinal ideas is elevated and revered to the extent that it must be defended at all costs, even to the point of terrorism, even to the point of dying for it.

God alone is absolute and immutable. His attributes are exclusive to Himself. What God is, only God is. To attribute God's attributes to our doctrine and determine that our doctrine is absolute and unchangeable is to deify doctrine, and to engage in the absolutism that is indicative of fundamentalistic religion around the world.

The Scottish preacher and teacher, James S. Stewart, wrote these words: "Those who have succeeded in defining doctrine most closely, have lost Christ most completely."4

Doctrines, belief-systems, will always be the focus of religion, but not of Christianity. Christianity is Christ! Jesus' teaching was about Himself. He is the essence of Christian teaching, contrary to what Buddha said about his religion.

In Christianity, TRUTH is a Person, Jesus Christ. "Truth" is not just propositional truth statements within a belief-system of doctrinal theology by which orthodoxy is rationalistically determined. Jesus Christ is Truth! Jesus Christ is our Life! He is so exclusively; there is no other Way! John 14:6 - "I AM the way, the truth and the life." (James Fowler)

Christianity is not a belief-system. Christianity is Christ!

by James Fowler

FOOTNOTES
1 Torrance, T.F., Karl Barth, Biblical and Evangelical Theologian, page 215, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990
2 Torrance, T.F., Ibid. page 122.
3 Edwards, Gene, Church Unity...How to Get There, page 99, Auburn: Christian Books Publishing House, 1991.
4 Stewart, James S., A Man in Christ, New York: Harper and Brothers.

Amen tuc.

Yes, I had put credit to JF at the end of the article. The title was too long.

Thank you.

Thank you for posting this Brother.

Your welcome! Thanks for reading it.

Here are some questions that go with it.

1. Was there anything that surprised you in this article?
2. What did you like or not like?
3. From your own “frame of reference” how would you define or describe a belief system?
4. When Jesus was going to depart from this earth, would you say His primary focus was on remembering His teachings or on Himself and who He was?
5. Why do you think this is so?

6. Most “religious teachers” taught to remember their teaching, how was Jesus different? See Jn. 14:6 and 11:25.
7. If you didn’t have anything in writing could you still know Jesus as your Savior? Why or why not?
8. What do you think the Evangelical Christian Church’s primary focus is on today; teaching or the very vital and dynamic Being of the person and life of Jesus Christ by His Spirit?
9. What are the four things the author mentions that Christianity is not?
10.What does he say Christianity is?

11.If Jesus left us just with His teaching apart from who He is what would we really have?
12.What does the author say about how Christianity can function?
13.When doctrinal and theological beliefs become the essence of Christianity what happens to the Church? To the individual Christian?
14. According to your Christian experience so far would you say the teaching you have been exposed to is equally balanced with the dynamic, alive, reality of Christ living in and through you?
15.When you gather with other Christians, what do you talk about the most?

16. If you opened a book entitled “The Essence of Christianity” what are some of the things you would like to see mentioned?
17. Finish the sentence: “Christianity is all about_____________.”
18. When you read “Jesus came primarily to give us what”? How would you answer this?
19. What are some differences between Jewish and Greek thinking? See 1Cor.1:22.
20. What did Paul emphasis in 1Cor.1:23?

21. What does the author say the so called “Church Fathers” reduced Christianity to?
22. What were the “Church Fathers” so quick to let go of?
23. Is this Christianity “more or less” as you know it today?
24. When the Church focuses on the teachings of Jesus as the essence of Christianity aren’t we placing Him on the same plane with other religious teachers?
24. Did Jesus say “who do they say that I am”? or did He say “ what do others say that I teach”?
25. When the Apostle Paul wrote about who we are in Christ, and what we have in Christ, he would always direct his teaching back to it’s Originator, the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

26. In the writing of Paul, John, Peter etc., there was a clarity of Jesus’ teaching and a simple record of the gospel dynamic of the life of Jesus Christ. Do you experience this in the “teaching” your exposed today? If not, what do you think happened?
27. What council was Constantine well known for?
28. What was his purpose?
29. What allegiance was to be given to this Nicene Creed?
30. As we moved further from the early church and the clear and simple record of the gospel dynamic of the life of Christ, what was Christianity perverted into around 325 A.D.?

31. How does the author describe Augustine’s theology?
32. How did Karl Barth refer to Augustine’s theology?
33. What was the seven hundred year period from 200 B.C. to 500 A.D. known as?
34. What about 500 A.D. to 1000 A.D.?
35. Why do you think this period is referred to as the “Dark Ages”?

36. What church was Thomas Aquinas associated with?
37. What did a man named Rene Descartes introduce during the Renaissance Period?
38. What about Sir Isaac Newton?
39. Why was the Reformation called the “Reformation”?
40. Wouldn’t you think that the birth of Protestantism moving away from the Catholic Church would restore the centrality of the spiritual dynamic of Jesus Christ?

41. What did it develop into?
42. As disagreement began to arise, what did they divide and subdivide into?
43. Do you see the evidence of this today? If so how?
44. How does author Gene Edwards summarize the Reformation? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
45. So far in this study, what are some things you have learned that you didn’t know or realize before?

46. In 1611 the King James Bible was translated. It has also become known as what other title?
47. Why do you think that is?
48. Why are newer translations moving away from using the word “doctrine”?
49. Before reading this article, when you heard the word “doctrine” what came to mind?
50. In your opinion how is the word “doctrine” viewed among
Christians today?

51. If you were to disagree with some of the things in a Church’s “statement of faith” how well would you be accepted? Have you ever experienced this?
52. How does the author summarize America in relating to
denominationalism?
53. Briefly describe what he says about “fundamentalism”.
54. What does he say has become their basis of fellowship,
acceptance, security and bonding?
55. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, “It is a tragic misrepresentation of the Church when the basis of our commonality is calculated by doctrinal agreement, rather than the indwelling Lord Jesus Christ; when uniformity of doctrine is the primary issue instead of the unity of Christ”? Why or why not?

56. What does the author say doctrine has become in “Christian religion” today?
57. What does he describe as a gross form of idolatry?
58. God is only what God is and God alone is absolute and
immutable, meaning His attributes are exclusive to Himself and only Himself. What do we make a person or object when we place or attach an exclusive attribute of God to that person or object?
59. If doctrines and belief-systems focus on religion (which means to “bind” or “tie up”) what happens when the Christian Church makes doctrine and belief-systems their primary focus of teaching?

60. How would the statement from James Stewart be true?
61. If you were asked, “what is truth”, how would you answer 62. If I said to you, “you are saved by grace through faith”, would that be true? Why or why not?
63. Would the statement be true because it is a statement that happens to be true or is it true because it came “out of” the essence of “The Truth”, the Lord Jesus Christ who is Truth?
64. Does it make sense to you that what is true can only be true in Christ and from Him, and does it also make sense that “truth” cannot exist apart from Christ, who IS the Truth?
65. Can truth be whatever we want it to be? Why or why not?

66. From reading this study can you now see that Christianity IS Christ?

Just bumping this back up as I believe it warrants another view in case others might have missed it. I read it several times in order to get the full meaning and it was certainly worth it in my opinion.

Wayne

Bump. This goes with the current thread "Systematic Theology".

Pilgrim

The Reformation was an intellectual brawl

Doctrine has been deified in "Christian religion" today. Doctrine has become their "god."

On the other hand many are concerned that doctrine is being ignored. These days doctrine tends to get blamed for the religious factions. Instead we just need love. Or we just need Jesus. Or we just need tolerance. Or we just need “unity”……… but just not doctrine. So to say that doctrine is deified ….. well - I wonder if this has become the straw man argument of today. The pendulum, it seems, has swung the other way – at least in practice if not in the institution’s doctrinal statement on their website.

I have a question regarding the thread title: If Christianity is NOT a belief system – why did Paul bother writing Romans? That epistle seems to articulate a belief system - an orderly system of thought –that rests on the foundation of Jesus Christ. The many quotations of Old Testament passages by Luke, Paul, and other NT writers demonstrate that this Jesus wasn’t just some faddish cult leader who suddenly popped up out of nowhere. This person, Jesus, was associated with a well-articulated system of beliefs, prophesies, and practices that had long-standing historical roots.

In following Jesus, believers in Paul's day were following far more than a lone individual doing his own thing. They were following something absolutely massive! Same for us.

My overall point then is this: In making an assertion, it is not always best to negate what may seem like its opposite. It is not always either/or – black or white. The truth may lie in the fact that it must be BOTH: both doctrine and Jesus; both belief system and Jesus.

I think the real concern is the possibility of faulty doctrine or a faulty belief system that distorts God’s redemptive purposes and plan through Christ. Also - it is not likely that we all have some degree of faultiness in our beliefs? Need this matter? Should we avoid exploring that possibility - lest we find ourselves at odds with anyone?

Diane

Christianity is NOT a Belief-system. Christianity is Christ

Then you must ask "Who is Christ?"

andy

God bless you pilgrims777 for this beautiful wonderful post. I needed to hear this as an exhortation to my growth in Christ in His Life. True the sum and purpose of every other teaching about Christ is This very Life and until then no teaching about Christ have accomplice its purpose. As the article put it it will not be different from those other religions. Christ is Life , the energy of God all is in Him.He can only be received and increased daily within the believer by faith in the heart not by metal reasoning.

Hi! 'Pilgrim777'

I must admit that the title of your Thread struck me as something compelling, "Christianity is NOT a Belief-system. Christianity is Christ".

Anyways, the more I pondered the title and, especially after reading the Post through to the end, it kinna' left me feeling that I had jus' gulped a barrel of noisy air.
While I was in full agreement with "Not a belief-system", I was somewhat disappointed with the concluding statement saying, "Christianity is Christ".

I found myself somewhat agreeing with the member 'RoadSign' comment saying: "I think the real concern is the possibility of faulty doctrine or a faulty belief system that distorts God’s redemptive purposes and plan through Christ". Although, I myself might have rendered it as, "Those who distort God's ultimate plans and intents with man by preaching a gospel about following in the footPRINTS of Jesus rather than in His footSTEPS".
Otherwise, we only have a gospel of elevation from out of an old life and not a resurrection into a newness of life.

I'm not trying to be knit-picky 'er anything ... but Christianity is not merely "Christ" ... it is something far more ... the RISEN, CROWNED Christ of glory!

Christianity will always remain a belief-system and/or lifeless ideology for those who fail to recognize the Risen Christ Who is now seated in the heavenly places and Who is crowned with honor and glory; and Who is the First-Born of the New Creation.
Jesus has been made both Christ and Lord by God. He is not only the Christ of God, but also the Kurios of God. With that He receives a 'name' equal to that of the Most High.
Our Crowned Jesus Christ can only be found and followed after in heavenly places.

This is why we must purpose to follow after the footSTEPS of Jesus so that we honor His prayer saying, "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me".

Following the footPRINTS of Jesus while He walked the shores of Galilee will never reveal His honor and glory. We must follow His footSTEPS into the heavenly places if we wish to see Him not only as the Messiah but as the Re-Creator and Restorer Who is crowned with unimagined honor and glory.

Blayne maybe i misunderstand some of your taught or need to get some light through you. the question is, How can one get Christ, without having the risen, glorified Christ?

Hi Bakary,

Glad you were blessed by the article.

I will add a couple of my own thoughts and I don't know if this will help alleviate some concern that James Fowler is throwing out doctrine (teaching of Christ), although clearly he is not if you ever just look at his Bible Study tab.
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/study.html

Do you know how Muslims call Christians "people of the Book"?

Why do they do that? Why don't they call us "people of the Spirit", instead or "little Christs"?

I thought about this for quite some time and my own conclusion is that they call us the "people of the Book", because we (Christians) have made Christianity into a "Book Religion". Clearly, when we think of Paul and John and the Apostles (at least when I do), I don't think about how much "knowledge" they have, but rather how close to the Lord, how surrendered and submitted to Him they are and how focused they are on heavenly things.

And God never intended that we should worship the Book. That is bibliolatry, making the Bible into a physical idol. The reverence that many Christians attach to the book is dangerously close to idolatry of the Bible.

Let me pose this question? Does it follow that if we can just get our "doctrine" right then we will know Christ?

Or...

Do the Scriptures teach that "If any man will do His will", then shall he know of the doctrine (teaching), whether it be of God or not?

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Is the learning of God's will in arriving at right doctrine or is it the other way around? The learning of God's will (and thus the learning of God), is attained by submission and obedience to Christ, not a set of rules and regulations obtained through a systematic theological codification of the Scriptures.

The distinction that we must try to make since we upheld as "the people of the Book", is that we must uphold the living Christ above the book.

Blayne, the article opened up with this statement:

"Western society, steeped in Aristotelian rationalism, always seeks a formulated and systematized ideology to adhere to. Christianity is not a belief-system, but the vital dynamic of the very Being of the person and life of Jesus Christ by the Spirit."

BUT THE VITAL DYNAMIC OF THE VERY BEING OF THE PERSON AND LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST BY THE SPIRIT.

Christianity is not the religion of the Book. Christianity is Christ! Christianity is the dynamic, personal Spirit of God functioning in man. It is not the study of, memorization of, or adherence to the principles and propositions and precepts of a bound-book.

I love the Scriptures and they are always circulating within my spirit and I test and discern through the combination of the renewing of my mind with the Scriptures through all the many years I have read them and with the help of the Spirit. Mostly, the help of the Spirit, because I have come upon some strange "species" of so-called Christians in these days where I cannot pinpoint doctrinally sometimes what the problem is, but the Spirit of God will always give me a check in my Spirit until He brings me clarification.

Let's see to be known as those who know and reflect Christ because of His Spirit indwelling us. Let's walk as He walked.

1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

I may have answered some questions and may have created more. Let the conversation continue. It's a good one.

My Muslim boss referred to Christians as "the people of the book", I took kind exception to that and we had a 3 hour conversation about the living, dynamic Jesus Christ and His life in us, today. She said that she has seen very little of these types of Christians, but she has seen a lot of "the people of the book".

Pilgrim

Thank you, JiG.

We are not saying the Scriptures are irrelevant and non-important and the Apostle's teaching or Christ's teaching are irrelevant and non-important.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

But we worship a living, dynamic Christ, not an historical Christ.

Question for all: Is the Christ you are walking with each day, Static or Dynamic. Is He the historical Christ or the ever present and very active, LIVING CHRIST?

Pilgrim

Hmmm, what is that rising up inside you?

Do you find this insulting? Paul was writing to the true sheep, at the time.

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

I have never found this insulting, myself. I have always received it as a warning and a challenge and a very strong admonishment.

There was a brother, recently on SI that repented of "following an Historical Christ".

Pilgrim

I sure hope the conversation continues and there are no misunderstandings as to the thoughts trying to be conveyed. I see from the posting of several other threads that many others want to talk about our Living Christ and the indwelling Spirit of God.

I will be offline the rest of the day and tomorrow. I am blessed and encouraged by many replies.

His peace to All,
Pilgrim

by bakary on 2012/7/21 7:33:30
Blayne maybe i misunderstand some of your taught or need to get some light through you. the question is, How can one get Christ, without having the risen, glorified Christ?
============================================================

Hi! 'Bakary'

I so much appreciate your asking this question because it answers to the very basis of our Christian experience.

By way of explanation, let's first answer the question: When did the Apostles become acquainted with the glorified Christ?
The Jesus they listened to and followed after on the shores of Galilee was not the glorified Christ.
It was only when Jesus appeared for forty days on the earth, (after His death and resurrection), that the disciples met and saw the glorified Christ; when He suitably appeared in His glorified body.
"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God", Acts 1:3).

So, that might possibly be the answer to your question about my prior comments. The disciples of Jesus were eagerly following after the footPRINTS of Jesus for three years. But it was only AFTER the death and resurrection of Jesus, that they met the glorified Christ, (during the forty days).

Yet, another question needs to be answered:
How did the disciples follow the glorified Jesus?
The simple answer: by following after His footSTEPS.
And, where do those footSTEPS lead?
To heavenly places; where our glorified Jesus reigns as king.

And this brings us full circle to the verse: "And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus".

And, what enabled the disciples to follow in the footSTEPS of the glorified Jesus; to live and walk and have their being (citizenship) in the heavenly places?
Simple answer: the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Why is that?
The disciples did not know about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When the disciples were following the footPRINTS of Jesus, "the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified", (John 7:39).

What happened when the disciples were baptized in the Holy Spirit?
Their human spirit united with the Holy Spirit as in a spiritual bond of marriage; "he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him", (1Cor 6:17).

But that's just half the story!
The baptism of the Holy Spirit resurrects us to a new "home" where we live and have your being with the One Whom we are now united with. This is why we have been "raised up" to "sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus". This is why it also says that we have been "resurrected to newness of life".

Those who only follow after the footPRINTS of Jesus, invalidate their marital vows by choosing to remain as citizens of the earth.

"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God". This verse invites us to follow after the footSTEPS of Jesus; to ascend into the heavenly places and to abide with the glorified Christ in a "newness of life".

And, a final question needing to be answered:
What did the glorified Jesus speak about to His disciples during those forty days?
The simple answer: "Things pertaining to the kingdom of God". (Acts 1:3).

What is the gospel of the Kingdom?
It is the gospel OF Jesus; not merely the gospel ABOUT Jesus. It is the gospel which Jesus Himself preached and also which He prophesied saying, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come", (Matt 24:14).

It is the gospel of the Kingdom which instructs us about following in the footSTEPS of Jesus; about following after Jesus and taking up our position in the unseen world to live and rule with Him as royal children and maturing sons of God.