St John of the Cross

[MostlyConfused]

Then why did Christ have to die if we can save ourselves? We are judged by what we do but the main point is in doing it, whether we are in Christ or not.

He died to open up the new and narrow way. But everyone will be judged by what they did while in the body.

 

[Hepzibah]

But that way is narrow and very few find it so you have no mercy on those who don’t but who treat others well?
Do you not know the verse I was referring to of the trees by the river on the new earth? They produce a different fruit each month and their leaves are for the healing of people. Who are the people the trees are for? Not those who were crucified and walk in His holiness don’t you think?

Well scripture says there are few. The road is narrow. Will get back when I refresh those texts. Got a zoom shortly.

 

[MostlyConfused]

Look up the verse about the trees and tell me who you think they must be for. Nice meeting you and talking with you. Don’t forget to take your harp to the zoom.

 

[Hepzibah]

Look up the verse about the trees and tell me who you think they must be for. Nice meeting you and talking with you. Don’t forget to take your harp to the zoom.

lol

 

[ProDeo]

I have a copy of the book in PDF format. It's about extreme mystic Christianity, the word "Jesus" is only found once in the footnotes, the word "Christ" is not present at all, Scripture isn't found either except a reference so now and the in the footnotes.

A summary can be found here.

Not my cup of tea.

 

[Hepzibah]

The River of Life

REV 22:1Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be within the city, and His servants will worship Him. 4They will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. 5There will be no more night in the city, and they will have no need for the light of a lamp or of the sun. For the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.

6Then the angel said to me, “These words are faithful and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent His angel to show His servants what must soona take place.”

This is a description of the City of God, where the saints dwell starting from the minute they enter the kingdom in this life. No more tears or curses.

The trees of life also from Eden, bear the fruit of the Spirit - love, yielding in a fresh state regularly. The leaves are what the saints give out when they minister healing words to the lost to draw them to Christ. They give a taste of the HEALER of their souls if they follow the drawing and not pull back.

@MostlyConfused

 

[Hepzibah]

I have a copy of the book in PDF format. It's about extreme mystic Christianity, the word "Jesus" is only found once in the footnotes, the word "Christ" is not present at all, Scripture isn't found either except a reference so now and the in the footnotes.

A summary can be found here.

Not my cup of tea.

Mystical Christianity must be separated from eastern mysticism. It has nothing to do with it. It is about not just learning about God but experiencing Him in union and hearing Him speak directly.

The reason for the lack of references to Christ and scripture, is to show the state where one is in the wilderness and has 'lost' God. It is like Romans 7 when the Holy Spirit is not mentioned.

 

[bdavidc]

This thread has gone far beyond simply discussing John of the Cross. You are building doctrine out of mysticism, spiritual stages, private illumination, and the experiences of men, then trying to make Scripture fit that system. That is backwards. Scripture is the standard. Everything else must be judged by it.

The claim that some Christians reach a higher state where they no longer sin is not what John teaches. He says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8), and then tells believers, “if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). You cannot use 1 John 3 to erase what John already said. That is not interpreting Scripture. That is forcing a conclusion onto it.

The same problem appears with sanctification. Paul could say, “ye are sanctified” (1 Corinthians 6:11), and also say believers are being changed “from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18). Scripture teaches that believers are set apart in Christ and continue to grow in holiness. Denying progressive growth because you have adopted a mystical “higher stage” is not biblical.

And the idea that someone reaches a level where the Holy Spirit becomes his teacher in such a way that he no longer needs his understanding tested is especially dangerous. The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, and He never leads anyone beyond submission to it. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to test what they were taught (Acts 17:11), and Paul said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). No mystical experience, inner voice, spiritual director, saint, church father, or private interpretation gets a pass from that command.

Pursue holiness. Put sin to death. Obey Christ. But stop calling a mystical system biblical when Scripture does not teach it. Sinless perfection in this life is not established by the text, private illumination is not a higher authority than Scripture, and spiritual experiences do not create doctrine.

If this teaching is true, prove it from Scripture in context. If you cannot, then stop presenting it as something the Bible teaches.

 

[Hepzibah]

This thread has gone far beyond simply discussing John of the Cross. You are building doctrine out of mysticism, spiritual stages, private illumination, and the experiences of men, then trying to make Scripture fit that system. That is backwards. Scripture is the standard. Everything else must be judged by it.

The claim that some Christians reach a higher state where they no longer sin is not what John teaches. He says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8), and then tells believers, “if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). You cannot use 1 John 3 to erase what John already said. That is not interpreting Scripture. That is forcing a conclusion onto it.

The same problem appears with sanctification. Paul could say, “ye are sanctified” (1 Corinthians 6:11), and also say believers are being changed “from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18). Scripture teaches that believers are set apart in Christ and continue to grow in holiness. Denying progressive growth because you have adopted a mystical “higher stage” is not biblical.

And the idea that someone reaches a level where the Holy Spirit becomes his teacher in such a way that he no longer needs his understanding tested is especially dangerous. The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, and He never leads anyone beyond submission to it. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to test what they were taught (Acts 17:11), and Paul said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). No mystical experience, inner voice, spiritual director, saint, church father, or private interpretation gets a pass from that command.

Pursue holiness. Put sin to death. Obey Christ. But stop calling a mystical system biblical when Scripture does not teach it. Sinless perfection in this life is not established by the text, private illumination is not a higher authority than Scripture, and spiritual experiences do not create doctrine.

If this teaching is true, prove it from Scripture in context. If you cannot, then stop presenting it as something the Bible teaches.

This thread is not for arguing. The tradition is well established in all arms of the church, and frankly, to refuse to believe something that the very early chuch clearly taught and to which no-one brought about a charge of heresy, is really putting oneself on the enemy's side and in danger.

God hides things from the evil, proud and ignorant. There are many places in scripture where we find it said.

Please start your own thread for those who wish to oppose this teaching.

 

[bdavidc]

This thread is not for arguing. The tradition is well established in all arms of the church, and frankly, to refuse to believe something that the very early chuch clearly taught and to which no-one brought about a charge of heresy, is really putting oneself on the enemy's side and in danger.

God hides things from the evil, proud and ignorant. There are many places in scripture where we find it said.

Please start your own thread for those who wish to oppose this teaching.

If you teach this publicly on a Christian forum, then yes, I will answer it publicly and warn others when what you are teaching contradicts Scripture. You do not get to present doctrine publicly and then declare that nobody is allowed to challenge it.

Paul told believers to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The Bereans were commended because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Jude tells Christians to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Titus says an elder must be able “by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” because there are teachers “whose mouths must be stopped” when they teach things they ought not (Titus 1:9-11).

So no, “this thread is not for arguing” does not exempt your teaching from biblical examination.

You appeal to tradition and say this teaching was accepted by the early church. That does not settle anything. Jesus rebuked people for “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” and for “making the word of God of none effect through your tradition” (Mark 7:7, 13). Paul warned, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men” (Colossians 2:8).

The question is not whether a tradition is old. The question is whether it is true.

You have taught that Christians can reach a higher state without sin. Scripture says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8), and John tells believers, “if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). You have also spoken of reaching a level where the Holy Spirit becomes the teacher in such a way that human teaching is no longer needed and Scripture is interpreted by Him alone. Yet Scripture still commands believers to test what they hear and gives teachers to the church for the purpose of bringing believers to maturity (Ephesians 4:11-14).

Calling those who reject your teaching proud, ignorant, or on “the enemy’s side” does not prove your doctrine. That is exactly why everything has to be brought back to Scripture.

If you continue teaching these things publicly, I will continue answering them publicly when Scripture contradicts them. I am not going to stand by silently while unbiblical teaching is presented as Christian truth.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

 

[Hepzibah]

Look up the verse about the trees and tell me who you think they must be for. Nice meeting you and talking with you. Don’t forget to take your harp to the zoom.

I would just like to add, that the early church believed that where it was, was a place for healing, not a law court. People came into the building for healing - the ultimate healing from sin. Even just hearing the words of the saints would cause an effect in the area as we saw when revivals took place. The whole of Wales was affected in the late 18th and early 19 th C

 

[bdavidc]

I would just like to add, that the early church believed that where it was, was a place for healing, not a law court. People came into the building for healing - the ultimate healing from sin. Even just hearing the words of the saints would cause an effect in the area as we saw when revivals took place. The whole of Wales was affected in the late 18th and early 19 th C

You are still appealing to what “the early church believed” and to revival history instead of showing that Scripture teaches the doctrine you are defending.

If by “healing from sin” you simply mean that sinners heard the gospel and were saved, Scripture explains that plainly: “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). The power is in God’s Word and the gospel of Christ, not in some spiritual influence radiating from especially holy people.

Historical revivals do not prove mystical doctrine, and neither does an appeal to the early church. The question remains the same: where does Scripture actually teach what you are claiming? Let us stay with what is written.

 

[MostlyConfused]

I have a copy of the book in PDF format. It's about extreme mystic Christianity, the word "Jesus" is only found once in the footnotes, the word "Christ" is not present at all, Scripture isn't found either except a reference so now and the in the footnotes.

A summary can be found here.

Not my cup of tea.

I don’t know if you are intentionally lying, my guess is no, but while it’s true that John prefers “Christ” or “savior”rather than “Jesus” I think you will agree they are the same name. He mentions ”our Savior” on the very first page of DNOTS, the prologue. He mentions him in the prologue. Very first page. I’m not sure how you could miss the very first page. Even if you read a bit and decided it wasn’t “your cup of tea” as you say, you would have surely read from the first page, no? And it’s not the only mention and it’s not in a footnote but in the last paragraph of the short prologue.

If you are going by that link you gave from CCEL, the first page begins with ATMC, not with DNOTS. I have read many of your posts and, in particular, one where you said you had thought you were holy but discovered you weren’t, and since these are the very things John begins with I would think you’d find it of at least passing interest.

Since I’m pretty sure you didn’t even read the first page of DNOTS, but maybe read the first page or two of ATMC, which is much weightier of a read and one he never intended for beginners, I’m also pretty sure you didn’t personally count up the instances of his references to “our Savior,” “the Beloved,” or “Christ,” so you had to have looked online for the opinion of men and repeated what one of them said, which was not true, or at the very least was manipulative, then repeated the lie (or manipulation if it seems better to you).

I don’t often recommend ATMC, (or even DNOTS since I don't run across many who God takes by this mode, and therefore they would not understand even a little of it) but based on some of your posts, I do think you might find some good there. But at any rate, you should cease from searching for mens opinions online through AI and then stating their opinions as facts.