Do Christians Believe they have received Divine truth ?

[Iconoclast]

When Christians interact on a message board do they post what they understand to be Divinely revealed truth?

Or is it just religious notions?

If a Christian posts about the Trinity, is it Revealed by God or speculation?

 

[Reynolds]

When Christians interact on a message board do they post what they understand to be Divinely revealed truth?

Or is it just religious notions?

If a Christian posts about the Trinity, is it Revealed by God or speculation?

I believe God reveals truth to us through Scripture by The Spirit. I believe the revelation is a lifetime, ongoing process. I definitely do not think my interpretation of the revelation is inerrant.

 

[Reformed]

When Christians interact on a message board do they post what they understand to be Divinely revealed truth?

Or is it just religious notions?

If a Christian posts about the Trinity, is it Revealed by God or speculation?

You have to ask the individual poster what he thinks. The only divinely revealed truth we have is the written Word. When I post a verse I know I am posting something that is part of God's divinely revealed truth. That is not to say my post is divinely revealed truth. It certainly is not.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

I believe that God has revealed Himself through Scripture and the fullest revelation of God is in His Son Jesus Christ.

We have to be careful about what we believe is "revealed" as too often it is not what Scripture speaks of in detail or context but what we want to know. Too often we can encounter Christian "cultists" who claim that their view has been revealed to them by God, yet what is supposedly revealed is often focused on ideas about God's intention, ways, and mind rather than what is truly revealed in Scripture. Cults are no less dangerous (perhaps more dangerous even) when they are themed on Scripture.

For example, I am a Calvinist. To reference Spurgeon, I have a disposition to think of things in certain ways (if God did not change me, I don't think I'd have changed myself). But, again referencing Spurgeon, this is my understanding of what God has revealed and is prone to the limitations of the finite human mind.

Scripture does tell us that the Spirit unveils what has been revealed, but this is in association to sanctification and becoming more like Christ in our actions (evangelism, interactions among brethern,etc.).

So I'd answer the OP as "No" and "No". Sometimes Christians share their understanding which is more than just notions. We have to look at what fruit is produced, and we have to remember that often it is their understanding. But I strongly oppose the idea of a second special revelation.

What is revealed is revealed IN SCRIPTURE. Our ideas about the hypostatic union, the kenosis, etc. includes philosophical ideas and is our understanding (the varying definitions of "person" and such). BUT the Trinity is Biblical in that Scripture affirms God is Father, Son, and Spirit.

The simple way to test it out is to read Scripture (instead of commentaries). Systematically see what is said, and then see what you have.


I think that often times the answer can be seen in what is denied. The example of the OP is in regards to the Trinity. One does not have to affirm the Trinitarian doctrine to be saved (there is a lot of human understanding woven in later established explanations). BUT if one were to deny that the Father, Son, or Spirit were One God then there is an issue of denying Scripture.

That is why Scripture - not our understanding of it - is the key. Scripture is objective. Our understanding is subjective.

If anyone says "God led me to the truth of Calvinism...or Arminianism....or Mormonism (I've heard all three)" then you know to back away and hating even the garment polluted by their flesh.

 

[Iconoclast]

I believe God reveals truth to us through Scripture by The Spirit. I believe the revelation is a lifetime, ongoing process. I definitely do not think my interpretation of the revelation is inerrant.

Of course you are correct in this.
We are always learning and growing.
Let me ask you a question Reynolds...
When you post, do you post truth as far as you know?. In other words...you do not say...this is a wrong teaching but I am going to post it anyway.
You offer your best view of truth when you post.

 

[JonC]

Of course you are correct in this.
We are always learning and growing.
Let me ask you a question Reynolds...
When you post, do you post truth as far as you know?. In other words...you do not say...this is a wrong teaching but I am going to post it anyway.
You offer your best view of truth when you post.

That reminds me of why John MacArthur said he is always right....because if he is shown he is wrong he changes his view to the right one

 

[Reynolds]

Of course you are correct in this.
We are always learning and growing.
Let me ask you a question Reynolds...
When you post, do you post truth as far as you know?. In other words...you do not say...this is a wrong teaching but I am going to post it anyway.
You offer your best view of truth when you post.

I do indeed when dealing with doctrine. In politics I speculate quite a bit.

 

[Reformed]

I do indeed when dealing with doctrine. In politics I speculate quite a bit.

I hope we all do this. I do not feel obligated to present the other side of an issue. It is enough that I post the truth as I understand it from scripture.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

I hope we all do this. I do not feel obligated to present the other side of an issue. It is enough that I post the truth as I understand it from scripture.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I think the problem comes when Christians stop believing their understanding is their understanding and start believing it is divine truth.

When people do this they elevate their understanding of God's Word to the position of God's Word and themselves to God by relying on their own understanding.

History is replete with men who have done this (Jim Jones comes to mind), and our contemporary "Christian" culture is as well (with Scripture bent to the minds of men and their sexual sins).

When truth becomes subjective to our understanding of truth, then there is no truth to be had.

 

[Reformed]

I think the problem comes when Christians stop believing their understanding is their understanding and start believing it is divine truth.

When people do this they elevate their understanding of God's Word to the position of God's Word and themselves to God by relying on their own understanding.

History is replete with men who have done this (Jim Jones comes to mind), and our contemporary "Christian" culture is as well (with Scripture bent to the minds of men and their sexual sins).

When truth becomes subjective to our understanding of truth, then there is no truth to be had.

Do you have any recent examples of this on the Baptist Board? I ask because when I post on certain topics like predestination and election, I am confident that God's Word speaks clearly and authoritatively on the matter. In fact, when the Word is preached from the pulpit the preacher is declaring, "Thus sayeth the Lord!" I have never believed that my argument itself is divine truth. Divine truth is contained in God's Word. The best that I can do is present a biblical argument for or against a position and let scripture speak for itself.

 

[JonC]

Do you have any recent examples of this on the Baptist Board? I ask because when I post on certain topics like predestination and election, I am confident that God's Word speaks clearly and authoritatively on the matter. In fact, when the Word is preached from the pulpit the preacher is declaring, "Thus sayeth the Lord!" I have never believed that my argument itself is divine truth. Divine truth is contained in God's Word. The best that I can do is present a biblical argument for or against a position and let scripture speak for itself.

I have several examples from the Baptist Board.

When I speak of my understanding of predestination in terms of Cal vs Arm, I am speaking as a Calvinist. But Calvinism is not my religion. So I present my case for my understanding via Scripture. Other men interpret Scripture differently. It may very well be that they see things that I do not, but at the same time I am confident it is true the other way around as well.
Here is one example from the Baptist Board (not sourcing threads or authors). Some believe that God separated from Christ on the cross. The passage that can demonstrate that separation is where Jesus cries "My God, My God, why did You forsake me".

Did God separate from Jesus? It depends on how one understands "separation" (e.g., withdrawing His Spirit, withdrawing His aid, etc), "forsake", and a number of other ideas not specifically given in Scripture. Some believe that the word "forsake" can only mean "separate" even though as an English word that is not true.

Understandings differ. To each person their understanding is valuable as it is how they approach the Word of God. BUT the Word of God is constant. For the one who believes God withdrew His Spirit and the one who believes that God withdrew His aid, the understanding is different BUT the Scripture is the same.

Perhaps this is why we are commanded not to lean on our own understanding but to trust God's Word.

 

[JonC]

I don't know if anyone has ever watched The Path, but it is interesting in that it addresses some of this (it is about a fictional cult and cult leaders).

When we say things like "God unveiled the truth of Calvinism....or Arminianism....or Mormonism to me" what we are speaking of is a second special revelation. This is true because none of those understandings are found in Scripture within its own context.

We would be better to follow Spurgeon's example and say that "Calvinism...or Arminianism...(not Mormonism )" is the gospel to us and explain why - that we are, in our finite minds trying to understand the Divine, bound to a degree of error but this is the only way we can approach Scripture. And as Spurgeon praised the benefits of varying understandings to bring out truths that the other misses, so should we. We can learn from one another without having to adopt the other's viewpoint or become anti-Christian in how we hold our views.

 

[Reformed]

I have several examples from the Baptist Board.

When I speak of my understanding of predestination in terms of Cal vs Arm, I am speaking as a Calvinist. But Calvinism is not my religion. So I present my case for my understanding via Scripture. Other men interpret Scripture differently. It may very well be that they see things that I do not, but at the same time I am confident it is true the other way around as well.
Here is one example from the Baptist Board (not sourcing threads or authors). Some believe that God separated from Christ on the cross. The passage that can demonstrate that separation is where Jesus cries "My God, My God, why did You forsake me".

Did God separate from Jesus? Scripture says so. But not really. It depends on how one understands "separation" (e.g., withdrawing His Spirit, withdrawing His aid, etc). Some believe that the word "forsake" can only mean "separate" even though as an English word that is not true.

Understandings differ. To each person their understanding is valuable as it is how they approach the Word of God. BUT the Word of God is constant. For the one who believes God withdrew His Spirit and the one who believes that God withdrew His aid, the understanding is different BUT the Scripture is the same.

Perhaps this is why we are commanded not to lean on our own understanding but to trust God's Word.

Thank you for not citing the poster. I am not interested in singling out any individual(s).

Let us say that a BB member believes the Father separated from the Son while the latter was on the cross. Whether I agree or disagree with that position, I believe a BB member should be able to have that opinion so long as they are not telling me I do not have a right to my opinion. Of course, there are certain beliefs that stray so far from orthodoxy that they are outside of the Christian faith (i.e. denying the Trinity or the virgin birth). I am not saying those beliefs deserve a fair hearing.

A few months back you and I went back and forth over the Atonement. Both our views fall within orthodoxy, although we both hold different opinions. You have the right to argue for your position and I have the right to argue for mine. Should either of us view that as a problem?

 

[Reynolds]

Pentecostals hear from God about everything. I am a bit cynical, so forgive me in advance for my bluntness.
Baptist preachers only hear from God about two things:
1."I feel led by God to take a job as pastor at another Church."(lot bigger one than the one he is at)

2. "I have really been praying and seeking God. I am confident he has spoken to me about....." (building something expensive or buying something expensive)

 

[JonC]

Thank you for not citing the poser. I am not interested in singling out any individual(s).

Let us say that a BB member believes the Father separated from the Son while the latter was on the cross. Whether I agree or disagree with that position, I believe a BB member should be able to have that opinion so long as they are not telling me I do not have a right to my opinion. Of course, there are certain beliefs that stray so far from orthodoxy that they are outside of the Christian faith (i.e. denying the Trinity or the virgin birth). I am not saying those beliefs deserve a fair hearing.

A few months back you and I went back and forth over the Atonement. Both our views fall within orthodoxy, although we both hold different opinions. You have the right to argue for your position and I have the right to argue for mine. Should either of us view that as a problem?

Not only is it not a problem to argue one's views, I believe we should argue our beliefs, our positions. There is benefit in the argument apart from trying to change the other. When I argue I get to examine my own position. I can be open and hopefully leave the argument stronger than I began. I can also make observations about the other position.

The problem is when people see their understanding as divine truth rather than their understanding of divine truth. We see this when people use the language "plain teachings of Scripture" (which should be an instant tar and feathering in any legitimate debate).

 

[JonC]

The bottom line is Christians should believe that they have received divine truth in the form of Scripture.

Christians should not elevate their understanding of that truth to the level of Scripture.

God revealed all He has to reveal in His Word and in the fullest revelation of Himself in the person of Christ Jesus.

Why should we even desire more?

 

[Reformed1689]

The problem is when people see their understanding as divine truth rather than their understanding of divine truth. We see this when people use the language "plain teachings of Scripture" (which should be an instant tar and feathering in any legitimate debate).

Be careful, sometimes there are plain teachings in Scripture. Such as nobody comes to the Father but through Christ.

 

[JonC]

Be careful, sometimes there are plain teachings in Scripture. Such as nobody comes to the Father but through Christ.

Yes, there are plain teachings but the phrase is rarely implemented in debate regarding actual ones.

That said, if you get tarred and feathered for a plain teaching consider it a joy you were found worthy.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

I believe that God has revealed Himself through Scripture and the fullest revelation of God is in His Son Jesus Christ.

• 
  
• it is nice that you profess to believe it, but it is true because scripture declares it so, whether you or I believe it or not.

• [*]We have to be careful about what we believe is "revealed" as too often it is not what Scripture speaks of in detail or context but what we want to know.

That is why message boards exist in part. There can be a free and uncensored exchange of ideas in the open forum and we can let truth win out.

Too often we can encounter Christian "cultists" who claim that their view has been revealed to them by God,

I have not really seen this among Christians....only non Christian cults.

yet what is supposedly revealed is often focused on ideas about God's intention, ways, and mind rather than what is truly revealed in Scripture. Cults are no less dangerous (perhaps more dangerous even) when they are themed on Scripture.

I have not seen this much at all.,this seems rather vague. you have a thought in mind, but it is not getting out.

For example, I am a Calvinist.

How did you keep this a secret for so long? I do not remember you discussing with several of the non cals much concerning this i missed have missed those posts.
I know that the other cals do not have to keep saying they are cals. For example, Rippon, Greek Tim,,Luke 24, and many others just post on the topics and everyone knows where they stand.
Such is life

To reference Spurgeon, I have a disposition to think of things in certain ways (if God did not change me, I don't think I'd have changed myself). But, again referencing Spurgeon, this is my understanding of what God has revealed and is prone to the limitations of the finite human mind.

Now speaking of CHS...He was a Baptist. Nowadays he would be known as a Reformed Baptist

If he posted on here would his posts be welcomed as a Baptist?
or would the idea that he leaned to reformed baptist understandings cause some to be uncomfortable with his posts?
he used the 1689 confession of faith, and yet was so evangelical is seeking to win the lost, that Arminian types claim him as their own.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

• 
  
• it is nice that you profess to believe it, but it is true because scripture declares it so, whether you or I believe it or not.

That is why message boards exist in part. There can be a free and uncensored exchange of ideas in the open forum and we can let truth win out.


I have not really seen this among Christians....only non Christian cults.


I have not seen this much at all.,this seems rather vague. you have a thought in mind, but it is not getting out.


How did you keep this a secret for so long? I do not remember you discussing with several of the non cals much concerning this i missed have missed those posts.
I know that the other cals do not have to keep saying they are cals. For example, Rippon, Greek Tim,,Luke 24, and many others just post on the topics and everyone knows where they stand.
Such is life



Now speaking of CHS...He was a Baptist. Nowadays he would be known as a Reformed Baptist

If he posted on here would his posts be welcomed as a Baptist?
or would the idea that he leaned to reformed baptist understandings cause some to be uncomfortable with his posts?
he used the 1689 confession of faith, and yet was so evangelical is seeking to win the lost, that Arminian types claim him as their own.

Unfortunately having a group of Christians together does not mean that the “truth wins out”. Scripture, not what other men believe God reviled to them, constitutes truth and there is no need for it to “win out”. The battle has been won and God has revealed to us His Word. We do not need to look for a second revelation.

I don’t know if you are interested, but you can find information about “Christian cults” if you desire. My niece is a member of one, unfortunately.

Spurgeon would, I suspect, be welcomed by some but not by others. He has been considered a “moderate Calvinists” by some Calvinists and a “hyper Calvinist” by some non-Calvinists. Some people just want an echo chamber, so I’d imagine they’d object. He’d be welcomed by the staff and via the rules of the forum.

I am surprised you forgot that I was a Calvinist, especially given the discussions you and I had when we were “friends” (in an online sense). Our disagreements in one area does not change my views in another.