plain, simple, and clearly understood truth

[Ed Edwards]

plain, simple, and clearly understood truth

I keep seeing this phrase:
plain, simple, and clearly understood truth.
It appears like it is used when a person can't
argue against someone else's point:

1. changing the subject

2. off the topic and into the ad hoimen

3. there is no reason to believe it, but
the right to believe something else is prohibited

This topic is about epistemology. One needs a
doctrine of epistemology or else one is limited to
arms to explain one's self.

This topic is not about posting on bbs (bulletin boards)
except as that is a part of one's epistemology.

(spelling corrected only)

 

[Ed Edwards]

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration
of God, & is profitable for doctrine,
for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

1. ALL SCRITURE
I believe 'all scripture' refers to each translation of
scripture in what ever language. Thus my nKJV (new
King James Version) is a part of ALL SCRIPTURE.

2. PERFECT
The part of this passage I see most misunderstood
is "That the man of God may be perfect"

'perfect' is not 'without flaw' here
'perfect' means 'complete'.
In fact, the second half of 2 Timothy 3:17
cleary defines what 'perfect' means here.

3.
I also note the phrase

"is profitable for doctrine,
for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse"

not the phrase:

plain, simple, and clearly understood truth.

So i really don't know on which basis
plain, simple, and clearly understood truth
has a great significance???

(changes made to bolding only)

 

[BobRyan]

I find that different people have different "depth" in understanding a topic and the extent to which the Bible actually does or does not support them.

As long as they have some depth in both areas - you can get to a string of pretty helpful informative responses on a given subject.

But EVERYBODY has a "stopping" point on all subjects and you can usually tell what it is because when they hit it - they immediately resort to --
1. Ad Hominem - your team is not as well favored as my team - so "maybe you should go away"
2. Talk to hand - the head is not paying any attention to any points raised if they do not already agree with me.
3. Glossy terms where grand success is claimed non-stop and insult is dished out as the "icing" on the claim for success. This antic is interesting because they spend so much space claiming to have succeeeded in some mythical exchange (usually one where they merely "posted" rather then succeeded) - that you wonder why they are not filling this waste of space-post with posting the "substance" they claim to have already had.

Ideally - "The reason" we all post is "enthusiasm about the subject" - and an earnest belief that "you are right". But the depth that each person brings is "variable" and limits the amount of time that the topic will be "useful". (However I am still a firm "believer" in the "objective reader" even in cases where one side has long since "hit bottom")

The interesting thing is that when they reach their "limit" (whether they are a tea cup, a mug or a barrell of information before they hit bottom ) -- you can always take the last substantive challenge to their views and see it as a gaping chasm in their doctrine - for they clearly have no answer for it.

(That is usually true - except in cases where both sides hit bottom at exactly the same point)

 

[BobRyan]

So i really don't know on which basis
plain, simple, and clearly understood truth
has a great significance???

Let's take either Mark 7 or Matt 22 as illustrative.

In both cases Christ is debating HIS view against the view of OTHERS who have a pretty good depth of background in scripture.

In neither case does Christ say "this is kinda like Dan 11 and 12 - pretty hard to sort out all the details so I can see how you got off to the wrong track on this point".

But what is really happening is that man-made human tradition has such a strong hold on those debating with Christ that they truly suppose that each of his "good points" is just a "hard puzzle offerred by the opposition" and not really "Truth - clearly seen if you are not slavishly clinging to error instead".

The objective unbiased reader CAN get the point - but such unbiased viewers are few and far between.

However as we see in Matt 22 even biased observers - if not biased in favor of the flawed-man-made-tradition can also "get it clearly" just as the Pharisees saw clearly the argument "put the Sadducees to silence" where the Pharisees were not able to do that. (And of course NEITHER side argues "my side is the side of flawed-man-made false doctrines")

When a biased viewer steeped in tradition views a topic they will almost always be in favor of a "I am right because I always say I am right" kind of proof. Which is one that NEVER works within anyone not already convinced (you say that a lot on this board).

Notice in Matt 22 - if we ignore all the details and say "Christ's proof to the Sadducees was of the form - I AM RIGHT because I ALWAYS SAY I am right" -- Then you can IGNORE the actual details used to convince a hostile debate opponant. Notice how the Jews used that against the officers sent to arrest Christ as they returned saying "never a man spoke as this man spoke" - and the response was "Have any of the Jewish LEADERS believed??! Surely this ignorant rabble is accursed")

Question: Why would you WANT to do that??

Answer: Because even though Christ and you AGREE on the resurrection the problem is that HE is using DETAILS to PROVE it -- that happen to also threaten a man-made tradition YOU hold to --

So once again - the overpowering influence of prio-bias and clinging to man-made tradition surfaces EVEN in a debate where today's reader AGREES with Christ on the subject of the resurrection - just not on the details used to PROVE it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you Brother BobRyan -- what you say has a lot of merit.

 

[BobRyan]

This topic is facinating in my opinion because it gives us a chance to look into our own frail flawed human nature and see how natural and also learned bias is so very likely to turn as away from Bible truth.

take Matt 16 - Peter is not trying to come up with "bad ideas" for Christ - and yet when Christ makes a statement that is contrary to the man-made traditions Peter has learned about what is expected of the Messiah he says "Oh No Lord may it NEVER be" as if he is saying a GOOD thing!

Then of course Christ said "Get thee behind me Satan"!!

 

[BobRyan]

As a case in point for the posts on this page of the thread (page 1) I would refer the reader to the following BB link.

Notice how that thread comes to a complete stop.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1002821&postcount=261

The page of that thread - starting at the post linked above provides a striking illustration of what is being identified on this thread in terms of how people react under different circumstances when a favored POV is challenged by some pointed Bible texts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

OR then again, a person who might have posted about your
misunderstanding of scripture had enough faith in the
readers to figure they could figure it out for themselves.

The Wisdom Literature is full of 'the way people figure things'
as well as some about 'the way God figures things' -- the
discerning Christian will know the difference.

 

[BobRyan]

The point is that in some contexts - you can simply leave it up to the average reader to see the contrasts and figure out what the Bible is saying vs the various biased positions that deferring views will bring to the same topic.

But the question is "what do you do" when you can not respond the evidence in the texts? You try first one thing and then another. While you do it - the objective reader can see that it is not working.

Frustration sets in and pretty soon you just want those pesky texts to just "go away".

In other contexts the two sides may have more of an equal footing and so it is not so clearly one-sided. I would like to think however that in those equally matched situations both sides end up "learning" a lot about the subject instead of just grinding to a halt right out of the gate in a case where one side runs out of a way to respond to the overwhelming evidence of scripture opposed to their view.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

What you say has merit. What you say is not all merit.
But the difference isn't worth quibbling over ...

Sometimes i make a statement like:

"Velcro holds my shoes on my feet."

And someone else says stuff like:

"Bible Version, Edition, Book, Chapter & Verse; please."

I don't think it necessary to prove that statement from
the Bible, it is correct (and probably trivial ).

 

[BobRyan]

AGreed - some things can be sustained by reason alone.

But the bigger issue is that when you look at the many different flavors of Catholicism, or Protestantism etc you have to be struck with the fact that they all are supposedly reading the same Bible (the Bible PLUS other stuff in the case of the Catholic groups). How then do they come away with some many contradictory views? The answer is in Mark 7 - man-made tradition bends the reason so that they did not see their own made-up-system as opposing the 5th commandment.

And as pointed out in Matt 22 Christ shows how two agreed upon points in their own OT text FORCES the conclusion FOR the resurrection - and they were "silenced". Yet even then - will not yield their man-made traditions.

We are talking about sinful human nature - and we all have it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ed -

Question for you - would you agree that there are some truths that are very clear from scripture.

1. God created the world in 6 days and rested the seventh day?
2. Jesus died for the sins of the world?
3. God loves everyone?
4. There is a visible literal second coming?
5. There is a real literal Satan/devil who has angels that follow him?

Just examples of things that you might be able to claim are clearly shown in some texts of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here are some truths that are very clear from scripture.

(The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here are some truths that are very clear from scripture.

(The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

GE:

Although I agree with you on all points, here is a vital question; How is Christ's resurrection 'sunstitutionary'?

 

[BobRyan]

Here are some truths that are very clear from scripture.

(The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

Ok - so your argument is that these points can be clearly seen in the text - without needing a lot of "spin doctoring" to get the points.

Now going back to your OP - are you saying that some people are claiming this same level of "clarity" is presented in the Bible for less obvious doctrines or in fact for doctrines that are flat wrong?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here are some truths that are very clear from scripture.

(The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

GE:

What if one simply take the Apostolic Confession for The fundamentals of Christian Faith? I think there can be but very little added, and nothing taken out of it, to answer fully the requirements of Christian fundamentals.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Having said that, here in Kempton Park South Africa, in the Dutch Reformed Church, right in front covering almost the whole wall, is displayed the new "Statement of Faith" of this Church, so long thought to be 'orthodox'. This Statement, is a spelling out of Roman and Arminian heresy, right inside a Protestant stronghold. O my, where are we heading?

 

[BobRyan]

I thought Arminius WAS protestant!!

 

[BobRyan]

GE:

What if one simply take the Apostolic Confession for The fundamentals ofChristian Faith? I think there can be but very little added, and nothing taken out of it, to answer fully the requirements of Christian fundamentals.

I agree that it does contain a lot of truth - but as Calvin notes that bit about Christ going to hell is an addition that has been called into question.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I thought Arminius WAS protestant!!

GE:

He claimed to be.

But the Reformation started on one issue, and after it had ended already, went on, on the exact same issue -- with Arminius the champion of the original Catholic stance, and the Dordt-Protestant delegation, the defenders of the original Reformation-stance.
That's why Arminius was a Roman Catholic, and 'free-will-choice' till today is Roman Catholic heresy.
Pick your side.