Do Christians Believe they have received Divine truth ?

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

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

That is your philosophical take on it , but we do not have to share your understanding of that. What if your subjective judgment is in error? Have you been granted the "gift" of filtering all Divine truth, for everyone else?

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.

This again is your subjective view. You are welcome to it. Do not expect us to follow your musing on this topic.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

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

Now this I agree with. when someone censors another person, there is no truth

 

[JonC]

JonC,



That is your philosophical take on it , but we do not have to share your understanding of that. What if your subjective judgment is in error? Have you been granted the "gift" of filtering all Divine truth, for everyone else?



This again is your subjective view. You are welcome to it. Do not expect us to follow your musing on this topic.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.



Now this I agree with. when someone censors another person, there is no truth

No, that is not philosophy. That is Scripture. We are not to kean on our understanding but on God's Word.

Our judement is, to a degree, in error. We know in part, see dimly. We are not to rely on our understanding but on the Word of God. This was not, IMHO, a "divine suggestion".

We are dependent on God -NOT our understanding of God.

I think you somehow did not grasp my words. When I said "[w]hen truth becomes subjective to our understanding of truth, then there is no truth to be had" this had nothing to do with censorship. What it means is that subjective truth is no truth at all (truth is objective....it is not dependent on our understanding of it).

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

Unfortunately having a group of Christians together does not mean that the “truth wins out”.

In your mind, it does not. we can and do think differently. Can someone have a different understanding from you and be correct,JonC?

Scripture, not what other men believe God reviled to them, constitutes truth and there is no need for it to “win out”.

Yes, I have posted that on post 19,

• 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.

The battle has been won and God has revealed to us His Word. We do not need to look for a second revelation.

No one is speaking about a second one.

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.[/QUOTE]

Cults are sad....Cults are not really Christian however.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Spurgeon was a mainline Calvinist, no more, no less. Most of the Calvinists on here are mainline Calvinists and Baptists at that.So as a Baptist he could post on here freely without censorship, and not subject to any one persons subjective objection that he was too reformed to be a baptist? In other words....REFORMED BAPTISTS are considered to be Baptists, right along with General Baptists, Free will baptists,KJO baptists etc?

I am surprised you forgot that I was a Calvinist,

In the words of Josh McDowell... I do not see evidence that demands a verdict JonC.
If other cals come forward to rebuke me, I will have to accept that.I have not seen one do that so far.....
Nevertheless, I have to take you at your profession, and I will not censor you or anyone else on here.
You might have noticed that not everyone likes my posts,. many do, however. I have never put anyone on ignore here... I do not care for any form of censorship. If a person has truth, in time it will be shown in the open forum. If a person has error that will also come out.

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.

 

[JonC]

JonC,


In your mind, it does not. we can and do think differently. Can someone have a different understanding from you and be correct,JonC?


Yes, I have posted that on post 19,

• 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.

No one is speaking about a second one.

Can others believe that truth is known via group discussion rather than Scripture? I'm not only sure they can but I'm pretty sure many do.

But Scripture is our standard. People can believe that their understanding has been supernaturally revealed to them by God and is on par with Scripture (again, I suspect some here do) but that does not make it so.

These types of things have always been our disagreement (not Calvinism), BTW. So I suspect we will continue to disagree. For me, Scripture is God's Word and our criteria. It is really that simple.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, that is not philosophy. That is Scripture. We are not to kean on our understanding but on God's Word.

Our judement is, to a degree, in error. We know in part, see dimly. We are not to rely on our understanding but on the Word of God. This was not, IMHO, a "divine suggestion".

We are dependent on God -NOT our understanding of God.

I think you somehow did not grasp my words. When I said "[w]hen truth becomes subjective to our understanding of truth, then there is no truth to be had" this had nothing to do with censorship. What it means is that subjective truth is no truth at all (truth is objective....it is not dependent on our understanding of it).

That is your understanding, you are welcome to it. I do not agree.

I think God has given us His Spirit so we can know truth. I do not think we can evangelize and move forward not being confident that we have a grasp of saving truth.
A JW comes along with his works gospel and denial of the trinity. I do not have to doubt and speculate on this. I have TRUTH on this and i can go with it, nothing doubting, relying on the Spirit to use the truth for or against that person.
I do not think we are to be like joel osteen , denying truth, but smiling and telling people like he did on larry king, I just don't know larry;

 

[JonC]

That is your understanding, you are welcome to it. I do not agree.

I think God has given us His Spirit so we can know truth. I do not think we can evangelize and move forward not being confident that we have a grasp of saving truth.
A JW comes along with his works gospel and denial of the trinity. I do not have to doubt and speculate on this. I have TRUTH on this and i can go with it, nothing doubting, relying on the Spirit to use the truth for or against that person.
I do not think we are to be like joel osteen , denying truth, but smiling and telling people like he did on larry king, I just don't know larry;

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

What you are describing (the Spirit leading you to truth that is not in Scripture) IS by definition a second special revelation. It is the way of heretics and cultists.

We have our understanding, but the criteria is Scripture - not extrabiblical theories, not systematic theologies, not commentaries....but God's Word.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

Can others believe that truth is known via group discussion rather than Scripture? I'm not only sure they can but I'm pretty sure many do.

Here is a large part of the problem JONC
You suggest this idea, but no one, nobody has ever posted such a thing.When you say ,
Can others, it seems to me, logically you must believe,I am pretty sure,....

Then you ascribe ideas to a poster that he never said, that becomes a large problem

But Scripture is our standard.

No one has posted otherwise;

People can believe that their understanding has been supernaturally revealed to them by God and is on par with Scripture (again, I suspect some here do) but that does not make it so.

No one has posted any such thing. No one believes any such thing.
So why would you take it upon yourself to suggest such a thing?
This is the exact thing that i have asked you about a dozen times now, to stop doing this.
If a poster claims his post is equal to god, post him saying that, a direct quote.

 

[Iconoclast]

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

What you are describing (the Spirit leading you to truth that is not in Scripture) IS by definition a second special revelation. It is the way of heretics and cultists.

We have our understanding, but the criteria is Scripture - not extrabiblical theories, not systematic theologies, not commentaries....but God's Word.

Totally wrong JonC....
quote me anywhere saying such a thing

where did I post anything like this?
(the Spirit leading you to truth that is not in Scripture) show it with a direct quote.

 

[JonC]

JonC,




Here is a large part of the problem JONC
You suggest this idea, but no one, nobody has ever posted such a thing.When you say ,
Can others, it seems to me, logically you must believe,I am pretty sure,....

Then you ascribe ideas to a poster that he never said, that becomes a large problem

No one has posted otherwise;



No one has posted any such thing. No one believes any such thing.
So why would you take it upon yourself to suggest such a thing?
This is the exact thing that i have asked you about a dozen times now, to stop doing this.
If a poster claims his post is equal to god, post him saying that, a direct quote.

All I am suggesting is that Scripture is the authority of our faith and that our understanding of Scripture is not Scripture.

You do not use the words "second special revelation" but by definition that is what your words mean. The reason is that Calvinism is more than Scripture. If God revealed to yoy the truth of Calvinism then He gave you a second special revelation. There is no way around this.

That is our primary difference (always has been). It is not doctrine but how we hold that doctrine.

 

[JonC]

Totally wrong JonC....
quote me anywhere saying such a thing

where did I post anything like this?
(the Spirit leading you to truth that is not in Scripture) show it with a direct quote.

Maybe the Spirit told me.

The issue is that without a subjective standard there IS NO standard. THAT STANDARD IS SCRIPTURE.

I do not know who so many Christians have adopted such a low view of God's Word. I suspect it is because they have a low view of God and a high view of man.

But with the odd introductions of censorship, Joel Osteen, and the Jehovah Witnesses this is starting to look more like a tantrum than a discussion.

 

[JonC]

A restatement of the OP

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?

 

[Reformed]

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).

Jon, there are more than a few BB members who are a bit challenged in their ability to frame their arguments. I have read numerous times their use of phrases like or similar to "it is what scripture teaches" or "the plain teaching of scripture". I never came away with the suspicion that they consider their own understanding as divine truth. I chalked it up to other things. I will give you a perfect example of this. Some of our brethren on the Synergist side will argue that "all" always means "all" because it is the plain normative use of the word in all cases. Any serious Bible student knows that "all" can mean anything from every-single-thing to all of a group. However, there are some who put blinders on and refuse to admit that and use the "plain teaching" argument to defend their view. Are they elevating their own understanding to the level of divine truth? No. They are just making a bad exegetical argument. Now, if someone says, "God spoke to me and...", that is when I would begin to get worried. As we know, there is no private interpretation of scripture. As a moderator, you may have seen some of that and have had to act accordingly.

 

[JonC]

Jon, there are more than a few BB members who are a bit challenged in their ability to frame their arguments. I have read numerous times their use of phrases like or similar to "it is what scripture teaches" or "the plain teaching of scripture". I never came away with the suspicion that they consider their own understanding as divine truth. I chalked it up to other things. I will give you a perfect example of this. Some of our brethren on the Synergist side will argue that "all" always means "all" because it is the plain normative use of the word in all cases. Any serious Bible student knows that "all" can mean anything from every-single-thing to all of a group. However, there are some who put blinders on and refuse to admit that and use the "plain teaching" argument to defend their view. Are they elevating their own understanding to the level of divine truth? No. They are just making a bad exegetical argument. Now, if someone says, "God spoke to me and...", that is when I would begin to get worried. As we know, there is no private interpretation of scripture. As a moderator, you may have seen some of that and have had to act accordingly.

I got the "divine truth" part from the title of the OP.

There are occasionally some who hold a privite interpretation of Scripture. My view is that if it is a new view there is more than a good chance it is wrong.

I took the OP to be less specific. For example, there have been some who argued that they were led to the truth of a paticular theological position by God even though that position is not fully articulated in Scripture. This idea is a continued special revelation.

For example - I am a Calvinist. But I am able to understand other positions and the philosophical considerations woven throughout Calvinism. Calvinism addresses theological principles differently than they are expressed in Scripture. But I believe it is correct.

I have encountered a few who believe Calvinism is the divine truth God has led them into. By default this includes the reasoning, philosophy, contextualization, ect. that are always present in systematic theologies and their products.

I agree with the theology, but the latter is the heresy of a continued special revelation.

 

[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 will use Calvinism because it seems very dear to you. Do you see Calvinism as truth Divinely revealed to you or do you see it as something you learned from men and you agreed with the their interpretation of the supporting scripture the doctrine is based on?

 

[Reformed]

I took the OP to be less specific. For example, there have been some who argued that they were led to the truth of a paticular theological position by God even though that position is not fully articulated in Scripture. This idea is a continued special revelation.

This is your view and it is subjective. In my case, I was raised Roman Catholic and traveled a circuitous route to the doctrines of grace (Calvinism). Do I believe God lead me to where I am right now? Without a doubt. How did God do that? Exclusively through His word. I am convinced that the Reformed view of soteriology is fully articulated in scripture. To use your words, I did not come to this understanding through, "reasoning, philosophy, contextualization" outside of scripture. Does that mean I elevate my understanding to the level of divine truth? No. I consider the doctrines of grace to be divine truth because I believe that is what scripture teaches. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Jesus told HIs disciples in John 16:13, "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." That passage has a different context but it does reveal the Spirit's role in revealing truth. I expect that many of those who hold to the Synergist/Arminian position believe similar. Both sides think the other side is wrong but that is to be expected in this type of venue.

 

[JonC]

This is your view and it is subjective. In my case, I was raised Roman Catholic and traveled a circuitous route to the doctrines of grace (Calvinism). Do I believe God lead me to where I am right now? Without a doubt. How did God do that? Exclusively through His word. I am convinced that the Reformed view of soteriology is fully articulated in scripture. To use your words, I did not come to this understanding through, "reasoning, philosophy, contextualization" outside of scripture. Does that mean I elevate my understanding to the level of divine truth? No. I consider the doctrines of grace to be divine truth because I believe that is what scripture teaches. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Jesus told HIs disciples in John 16:13, "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." That passage has a different context but it does reveal the Spirit's role in revealing truth. I expect that many of those who hold to the Synergist/Arminian position believe similar. Both sides think the other side is wrong but that is to be expected in this type of venue.

It is one thing to say that God led you where you are at and another to say that your understanding is divine truth.

I am sure that @Reynolds can testify that God led him to Reformation Arminianism. And @Revmitchell probably can say that God led him to understand corporate election. God led me to understand that the Atonement is not contained in one theory.

That does not mean that I hold my understanding to be divine truth rather than my understanding of divine truth.

We are still inhibited by our humanity in this process of sanctification. We see in part.

We can philosophize about it all day long, and it can be a thin line. But Scripture does tell us not to lean on our understanding. That's enough caution for me.

 

[Reformed]

I am not sure what you mean by "this is [my] view".

That was in response to your comment, "I took the OP to be less specific. For example, there have been some who argued that they were led to the truth of a paticular theological position by God even though that position is not fully articulated in Scripture. This idea is a continued special revelation."

It is your opinion that some have argued they have been led to the truth of a particular theological position by God even though that position is not fully articulated in scripture. Unless you have a quote from these "some" that they know their position is not fully articulated in scripture then it is a view you hold. You may feel strongly about it but it is still only Jon's opinion.

Do you believe that God revealed to you in a special way what he did not reveal to Arminians?

Jon, I came to my view on soteriology based on my understanding of scripture. Do I believe the Holy Spirit worked in my life to bring me to that understanding? Absolutely. I do not think this is a "revealing", as though God has bequeathed on me special knowledge that is not available to all. Imagine if I came to my current view based on my own understanding. I would then be rightfully charged with elevating my own understanding to the level of divine truth. Do I think that God revealed this understanding to me in a special way? Not special to me. If there is anything special, it is the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the people of God to make them more like Christ. What do I think of what God has revealed to Arminians? I obviously think Arminians are wrong, so I do not believe the Holy Spirit leads into all error. He leads into all truth.

 

[Iconoclast]

All I am suggesting is that Scripture is the authority of our faith and that our understanding of Scripture is not Scripture.

You do not use the words "second special revelation" but by definition that is what your words mean. The reason is that Calvinism is more than Scripture. If God revealed to yoy the truth of Calvinism then He gave you a second special revelation. There is no way around this.

That is our primary difference (always has been). It is not doctrine but how we hold that doctrine.

Here you do it again;
[You do not use the words "second special revelation" but by definition that is what your words mean}

No, not all. If I do not use the words, then leave it right there. Do not ascribe words to me or any other poster that they did not post.I have said a dozen times now, If I need a "spokesman" I will ask for one. I do not however, so stop trying to do this..

Because YOU do not understand what is being discussed is no reason to apply your limited thoughts to everyone on the board. No one is speaking of special revelation at all.

That is our primary difference (always has been). It is not doctrine but how we hold that doctrine

No..I see it as being both, but that is a side issue.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reformed,

It is your opinion that some have argued they have been led to the truth of a particular theological position by God even though that position is not fully articulated in scripture. Unless you have a quote from these "some" that they know their position is not fully articulated in scripture then it is a view you hold. You may feel strongly about it but it is still only Jon's opinion.

Yes, exactly. he has a right to any opinion he wants to hold. His opinion is not binding on the conscience of anyone else.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reynolds,

I will use Calvinism because it seems very dear to you

.

Thank you Reynolds, that is considerate on your part. I am not wedded to the term in that sense, but labels are a time saver if you get to explain them.

Do you see Calvinism as truth Divinely revealed to you or do you see it as something you learned from men and you agreed with the their interpretation of the supporting scripture the doctrine is based on?

Neither of these two options, but I think I see what you are searching for, so let me clarify my response for you.

I was raised RC, but I was not really a good one and easily drifted away during my teens.
Living in sin i used to be very hostile to Christians and my rebellion against God was growing. I was not seeking God, I fought against God, resisting. I might be the last person that people would have .

Starting reading the bible in my early twenties as I had never actually read a bible, we used a St.Josephs missal....

Read the first 11 chapters and put it down, got bogued down in what I was reading.
I was totally ignorant of the bible.
I did not know the Ot, From The NT....I did not know what the numbers meant.jn 6:44 I did not know that was chapter and verse.
I had no knowledge of theology whatsoever.
I did not know of Calvin,, Arminius, ECF, Puritans ...none of it.

Eventually found what I now know was the NT. read the gospels knew some of the miracle stories...feeding the 5000,etc

Eventually, God saved me from reading scripture alone. Before that, I was ashamed that I was reading a bible.

When i read Eph1 for the first time as a believer, I knew without any doubt, that God was God and everything was predestined right down to the people. I never struggled with it at all.
Keep in mind, I was totally naive of any of the theological terms or History...Just reading the scripture I began to mark each verse that mentioned, before the world was, predestined, elected, etc.

After that a friend I used to avoid because he announced he was a Christian, contacted me and told me of free tapes, two a week that i could get from Dallas theological seminary.
then i found out about several more free tape lending libraries, Media PA, Hot Springs ARK. I worked nights and could listen as i worked.
S.Lewis Johnson was one of the first ones who began using some of the terms,theological terms first, Atonement, reconciliation, propitiation,
He also started mentioning church history snippets, I had several legal pads and index cards full of notes and words I had to look up. I was making charts and diagrams , Then I heard this message of Conference echoes one night;

http://sg-audiotreasures.org/grace/03wd_limited.mp3

This tied in several of my highlighted verses so clear there was never any more wavering....i ordered to tapes that night, then 200 more. It was now fitting together.
Read Bancrofts elementary systematic theology first, then went to Berkofs, Then Daggs manual of theology, Jp.Boyce,Abstract of Systematic theology, bought a 15 volume set of Spurgeons sermons, sold that to a friend, and then bought the whole metropolitan tabernacle, and new park street pulpit......it happened like that, I have purposed to learn more since then.
Tried to find books that opposed the teaching, but went through them like a hot knofe through butter. The same errors repeated over and over....That is why the two options do not quite get it, lol