The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Subjective experience

Hello all. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I was just wondering if I could get some help on a topic. I had sent my Pastor an e-mail concerning his sermon last Sunday and in it he shared some of his thoughts. There is something that I wish to further explore so I would like to bring it to you all.



Now I'm not trying to find error here, I'm just having to admit that I'm not very clear here on "subjective experience."

So I am going to try to read about it more this morning and If anyone would like to contribute their thoughts on this subject, It would be most welcome. Thank you and have a blessed day!

Y.B.I.C,

Dave. ><>

The sensory buzz and awareness associated with a conscious mind is often called subjective experience. Seeing red, feeling cold, feeling angry, longing for your hometown are all subjective experience. ---- subjective experience as defined by “Wikipedia”

Ok, I have found a site that really seems to be inline with what the sermon was about this last Sunday. Here's a link for anyone who is interested and has some time. I would really appreciate some help here. I'm afraid that I'm not very well educated so this might seem trivial to some, but I believe it's important for me to get a grasp on this. Thanks.

The Truth Concerning the Experience of Christ

Dave.

I think the Charismatic movement and even a good deal of the worship that takes place in "normal" churches feeds on an over-emphasis of subjective experience. Just because a large group of folks get together and sing emotional songs and everybody tears up and feels good about it doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit was involved or that the worship was pleasing to God.

That said, the older I get the more likely I am to recognize an answered prayer or God's provision and less likely to blame things on him that were merely circumstantial.

Ok, I have a feeling that we need to separate this idea here. I have read "Charismatic Chaos" by MacArthur and am aware of "Charismticism" in the church. Such as emotionalism; playing on peoples emotions through the music and the sermon. Also there are subjective experiences in the Charismatic movement that I understand as "subjective experiences" because they cannot be verified. Example... I have a Charismatic friend who has told me that God had healed his arm after a motorcycle crash. He did not have full use of his arm and without any medical aid, after time and through prayer, his arm regained it's strength and motion after it was diagnosed by a professional Doctor that it would not. By him telling me that it was God who healed his arm, because it was a miner miracle, because the Doctor told him he would never have full use of it again, is his subjective experience. In other words.... we cannot verify that it was actually God who through my friends prayer, answered his prayer by healing his arm.

Now here is the difference that I see that we should be wary of when it comes to Charasmaticism. I believe that scripture tells us that God answers our prayers. I also believe that God can answer our prayers with unexplainable acts. Such as a miraculous healing. But I don't think that it is something that we can rely on. In other words. If it be His will he would answer our prayers, but not that we should expect Him to do so. That is the reason that I'm not a Charismatic. I don't think we're lead to believe that Gods word tells us that we can expect God to preform miracles for us any time we gather to pray over someone who is sick or anytime we are in need of something. Sorry let me clarify.... I believe He answers all of our prayers.... my mistake.... but what I mean is that it might not be and often times is not in the way we want them answered... such as healing, wealth, fortune etc....

Anyway... sorry I'm not trying to confuse things here. But what I'm trying to do is to understand if there is a valid "subjective experience" outside of the "Charismatic" issue. Because what I'm really trying to do here is guard against possible error.

This is a Pastor from a PCA church and I'd hate to think that I need to worry about liberalism, secularism, emotionalism and a pulling away from sound doctrine and theology creeping itself into this church.

But I am wary.... there is another PCA church south of me about 45 minutes drive that has a conducts a "happy clappy" contemporary service. It is also it's only service. It does not have a traditional service.

Then there is another PCA church north of me about 30 minutes away that is very reformed. It only has a piano, no choir and sings from the psalms. This would be the church that I would prefer to go to, but it's very small and I had issues with my wife about it.

But anyway my point is that there is a pretty big difference between these two PCA churches. The thing is that each Pastor that I have talked too in these churches were very quick to let me know about the other PCA churches in my area and they all know each other and is familiar with the other churches and their programs. So my point is that there are some things that I find that I like and don't like about these different local churches that are all PCA and are "connected."

So in conclusion.... even though I'm sure that the reformed PCA church north of me would not consider ever having a "happy clappy" service, it bothers me that a local PCA church is conducting such a service and that the other pastors don't seemed bothered by it. So this is why I'm a little cautious about the church I'm attending. Not that I'm try to focus on error, I'm just trying to understand this whole "subjective experience" thing. That's all. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Dave.

(Fred) Did your pastor provide a bit of clarification by what he meant by "Subjectively experienced"? I would have had him explain what he meant and then provide some examples.

Fred
www.fredsbibletalk.com

(Dave) No, He was gracious enough to answer my questions in my e-mail to him, so I didn't want to further make him explain this to me. So I left it with him that I would do some research and then get back with him on it. So hopefully I will be able to meet him and have a talk about it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> We'll see. But first I would like a firm grasp of what this is all about.

Dave.

Here's a quote from the link I've supplied above. I believe it is very similiar to what the Pastor was saying in his sermon.


Dave.

I may seem "liberal" on this issue compared to some Reformed brothers and sisters, but I have found that Scripture shows that without an "experience" with the Holy Spirit, we can't be saved. And as far as I can tell, Scripture holds that after this "salvation experience" that we experience the workings of God in and through our lives, or we should.

There is a danger to this, though. In an attempt to avoid appearing Charismatic, some people have turned Christianity into mere intellectual mind games and brain teasers. And, of course, others have become obsessed with silly experiences. Somewhere in between those is a proper understanding. It appears as though, from the quotes, that is where your pastor was going with his thoughts.

Ok.... I've found some info in some books and so I am going to throw it out here for you all to take a look at and let me know what you think.

Calvin is clearly stating that the highest proof of all for the credibility of the Scriptures is the certainty that the Holy Spirit imparts to all believers. This is, of course, outside the objective realm and into the subjective world of internal testimony and confidence. But Calvin is not retreating here to some kind of mysticism, where belief in God’s Word can be attained only through a blind leap of faith. The Holy Spirit does not give the Christian new proofs in Scripture that are unavailable to everyone else. Nor does he impart new arguments or knowledge about Scripture that is unavailable to the unregenerate person. But the Spirit does enable the Christian to believe all the objective evidences we have discussed thus far. Nonbelievers can read the same bible, grapple with the same arguments, and still lack certainty, the supernatural certainty that comes only by the supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit. --- R.C. Sproul from “Defending your Faith”

Also, J.I. Packer states in his book “Keep In Step With The Spirit” that there are certain “perceptions” of God that we have that are experiential in nature. Not in a mystical way or in a way that would lead us to “subjectivism” and “existentialism,” But in a way that we can’t define objectively. He says that the great Puritans and especially the late-flowering Puritan Jonathan Edwards wrote of experiential fellowship.

He also states in his book “Knowing God” that knowing God is a matter of personal involvement – mind, will and feeling. It would not, indeed, be a fully personal relationship otherwise. The emotional side of knowing God is often played down these days, for fear of encouraging a maudlin of self-absorption. It is true that there is nothing more irreligious then self-absorbed religion, and that it is constantly needful to stress that God does not exist for our comfort or happiness or satisfaction, or to provide us with “religious experiences,” as if these were the most interesting and important things in life. But, for all this, we must not lose sight of the fact that knowing God is an emotional relationship, as well as an intellectual and volitional one, and could not indeed be a deep relation between persons were it not so. The believer is and must be, emotionally involved in the victories and vicissitudes of God’s cause in the world, just as Sir Winston’s personal staff were emotionally involved in the ups and downs of the war. Believers rejoice when their God is honored and vindicated and fell the acutest distress when they see God flouted. This is the emotional and experiential side of friendship with God. Ignorance of it argues that, however true a person’s thoughts of God may be, he does not yet know the God of whom he is thinking.

A Volitional element ( fiducia ). This is the crowing element of faith. Faith is not merely a matter of the intellect, nor of the intellect and the emotions combined; it is also a matter of the will, determining the direction of the soul, an act of the soul going out towards its object and appropriating this. Without this activity the object of faith, which the sinner recognizes as true and real and entirely applicable to his present needs, remains outside of him.

An emotional element ( assensus ). Barth calls attention to the fact that the time when man accepts Christ by faith is the existential moment of his life, in which he ceases to consider the object of faith in a detached and disinterested way, and begins to feel a lively interest in it. It is not necessary to adopt Barth’s peculiar construction of the doctrine of faith, to admit the truth of what he says on this point. When one embraces Christ by faith, he has a deep conviction of the truth and reality of the object of faith, feels that It meets an important need in his life, and is conscious of an absorbing interest in it, - and this is assent. It is very difficult to distinguish this assent from the knowledge of faith just described, because, as we have seen, it is exactly the distinguishing characteristics of the knowledge of saving faith, that it carries with it a conviction of the truth and reality of its object. Hence come theologians have shown an inclination to limit the knowledge of faith to a mere taking cognizance of the object of faith; but (1) this is contrary to experience, for in true faith there is no knowledge that does not include a hearty conviction of truth and reality of its object and an interest in it; and (2) this would make the knowledge in saving faith identical with that which is found in a purely historical faith, while the difference between historical and saving faith lies in part exactly at this point. Because it is so difficult to make a clear distinction, some theologians prefer to speak of only two elements in saving faith, namely, knowledge and personal trust. These are the two elements mentioned in the Heidelberg Catechism when it says that true faith “is not only a certain knowledge whereby I hold for true all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust which the Holy Ghost works in me by the gospel.” It probably deserves preference to regard knowledge and assent simply as two aspects of the same element in faith. Knowledge may then be regarded as its more passive and receptive side, and assent as its more active and transitive side. ---- Louis Berkhof from his “Systematic Theology”

So…… I’m still a little confused, but what I’m thinking here is that our Christian faith can’t be just knowledge of doctrine, but there has to be genuine emotion attached to our faith. The “subjective experience” is a way for us to know that what we’re learning about God is His “objective truth.” This is the work of the Spirit in us convicting us that what we are accepting as truth is truth. But we can’t have one without the other. We can’t rely solely on our subjective experience and feelings and we can’t rely on just our knowledge of scripture….. for even the demons have knowledge about God.

Dave.

I think people really freak out about this more than they should. I just read through that part you quoted in Knowing God (its in one of your posts). Somewhere in there he talks about knowing God by mere experience can happen and its a serious deception. Its right in there where he's talking about the difference between knowing a horse and knowing a person.

Anyway, yeah you have to be careful, thats all I was trying to say. I used Char-asthmatics as an example because that's the sort of extreme I am most familiar with. Plus, it looks like you've got it well in hand. Good references.

Here are a couple of really good articles which speak to this issue as well:

1. The Failure of Emotional Religion, by Norman H. Street

2. The Blessings, Main Problem and Dangers of the Charismatic Experience, by Erroll Hulse