Featured Spiritual Truth and Doctrine

Sure:

there isn't a difference and its absurd to insist there is.[/U] Anyone can misunderstand doctrine and hold to the wrong doctrine but true doctrine is spiritual truth. At best is is an awkward and sloppy way to put it. Most likely though it reveals a complete misunderstanding of what spiritual truth is.[/QUOTE]

You are saying there is a difference and saying there isn't a difference.

The difference being true doctrine versus erroneous and false doctrine.


God bless.

 

I dint say that you did.

Im saying it is an absurd way to put it. But regardless that is not how it was put in the op.

 

Hmm, so God uses words to save ...

Now that would be a spiritual truth that is incontrovertible.

What would not be spiritual truth is that we must appeal to universally accepted teachers and commentaries.

What would not be spiritual truth is that there are universally accepted teachers or commentaries.

So the words you are speaking are not spiritual truths, right?

This too is a spiritual truth.

That the words of the Word command us to insult others is not.

And that is a point made in the OP: an address of the fruit of those who claim to know what spiritual truth is.

This too is spiritual truth.

That the Word does not save is not.

I'm a little busy with my marbles at the moment.

So where exactly does Scripture command us to insult people found again? I'd certainly like to see what Scripture you base your truth on.

Maybe you could use the following for a proof text to your truth:

James 3:2
For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.


God bless.

 

That's odd because I am not charismatic, nor am I a member of a cult, and I believe that only the Word of God has the authority to dictate Doctrine and Practice.

I again affirm that the Bible is the only source the Body of Christ should view as authoritative.

Not teachers, not commentaries.

What has this to do with our discussion? Your beef against doctrines of men is irrelevant.

Agreed. But what are those teachers and preachers supposed to do?

Preach and teach what the Word of God teaches. Nothing else. Nothing above. If their doctrine goes astray they become known as false teachers and preachers/prophets. That just the example shown and the doctrine taught throughout God's Word, Old and New Testaments.

Could you show me in the OP where "fresh revelation" is espoused?


Continued...

 

Progressive Revelation is "apostate?"

You think Abraham understood the more complete teaching of the New Testament Writers concerning the Doctrine of Christ?

You think Daniel understood there would be a Rapture?

If you don't understand that Revelation has been progressive throughout Biblical History you simply have missed one of those most important spiritual truths that will help shape your understanding of Salvation.


Continued...

 

Not yet they don't.

That who preached?

And my appeal to Scripture Alone isn't based on the doctrine of men. It is simply based on the fact that I use Scripture Alone to support my doctrine and practice. Has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Reformed.

I agree that man is depraved, but not because I studied Calvin or the men who follow him. It's because that is what Scripture teaches.

That's your opinion. The thoughts and teachings of men that killed each other in the Name of God and of Christ have no great relevance to my studies.

So that you have been on this forum ten years longer than me makes what you say more valid?

Alrighty then.

You appeal to your membership, I'll stick with Scripture.

I've done my homework, lol, that is why I can address your doctrine and practice and you cannot disagree with me.

You can't support your doctrine of appeal to universally accepted teachers and commentary, and you can't support your doctrine of a command to insult in Scripture, and you cannot support your practice of insulting.

Reading and embracing the doctrines of men is not doing homework, it is called indoctrination.

It's pretty easy: just use sand.

There should be plenty of it right there under your feet.




God bless.

 

Is there any one human bean that you know of that didn't?

 

Still no Scripture?

You aren't going to find Scripture teaching us that we are to go around insulting.

The example of Scripture teaches that we will offend if we are speaking truth, not that we are to insult with the truth. Christ spoke the truth, they were insulted. Then they began to insult.

Not a pattern for us to follow.

If you don't agree simply present the Scripture.


God bless.

 

Oh yes they do. Your Darbyism blinds you.

 

No Scripture... oh brother. The point is even Christ used insults. Of course, this also depends on how you define an insult.

 

Apparently you missed a scripture reference in my post.

 

LOVE this retort! I'm stealing!

 

Would you mind addressing the OP and showing the absurdity?

Understanding and accepting doctrine could be viewed as not being spiritual truth. Many understand and accept the doctrine of tithing in the Church. Is that spiritual truth? Is the Church commanded in the New Testament to tithe as most pastors preach?

What in this do you disagree with?

The OP ends with the opportunity to discuss both the issue and the comments made.

What resulted looked more like ravening wolves consuming one of their own so they could feed.

I agree with the OP that there are believers who are woefully ignorant of Doctrine but do a great job showing Christ to people. I would say that there are spiritual truths that impact our daily conversation that can be understood by those who are not all that expert in doctrinal discussion.

An example would be the issue of murder: the truth is that murder is forbidden by God; the spiritual truth is that if one hates his brother without cause he commits murder in his heart.

This rises above the doctrine taught explicitly in the Hebrew Scriptures. The principle was there, and that is the reason for the prohibition, but not everyone understood that.

So do we think that there might be a similar misunderstanding and ignorance of the Scripture we have been given in the New Testament?

I think it probable not just likely. God is very consistent in His dealings with men. He is still, I believe, teaching in a way that some, having eyes will not see, and having ears will not hear.


God bless.

 

I didn't miss it: it didn't meet the standard for a doctrine teaching that we are commanded to insult people.


God bless.

 

Did I say we are COMMANDED to insult people? No I did not.

 

I've never read anything by Darby, but since you bring it up, this is a good example of why appealing to men and their teachings is a snare.

But the first century teachings of Paul make it pretty clear. At least, when we don't spiritualize the Scripture, lol.

An appeal to the Pre-Tribulation Rapture being a new doctrine when it is found in the first-century writings of Paul is what I would call absurd.


God bless.

 

I already addressed the op. If the op intended to pit spiritual truth against bad doctrine it should have said so. But it didn't.

 

Sorry, for me what we are told to do in Scripture is a command, not a suggestion. "Command" is my terminology in light of that view.

So I apologize. Now, can you answer the question?

God bless.

 

I forbid it.


God bless.

 

I don't see Christ as intending to insult, just speaking the truth.

I agree that sarcasm has its place at times, but that isn't the same as suggesting its okay to insult people. This is, in my view, contrary to what we are taught in Scripture.

As I said before, it is true we are going to offend when we preach the Gospel, correct, exhort, and even when we act as though what we believe might be truth, lol. That, just as implementing sarcasm to make a point, isn't intentional insult because we think we are allowed to do it. That Scripture tells us to do that is certainly not something someone is going to support from Scripture.

And I would say when it does come to using sarcasm, I think we need to be careful about that. I think it is useful in supporting a point that demands a specific answer it works well. But is it not possible to use sarcasm in humor, rather than hostility?


God bless.