Your view on the Atonement is against the one held by reformed and traditional Baptists, correct?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual Truth and Doctrine
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
No. It is contrary to the Reformed view, but consistent with many who affirmed Baptist doctrine historically.
My view is not against anybody.
Now I know what you're saying, LOL. You're virtue signaling. You're saying you have apprehended the higher 'spiritual' truth and that our corrections and reproofs of your doctrinal aberrations are mere persection by unspiritual men.
No, you still do not understand what I am saying.Now I know what you're saying, LOL. You're virtue signaling. You're saying you have apprehended the higher 'spiritual' truth and that our corrections and reproofs of your doctrinal aberrations are mere persection by unspiritual men.
I am saying Christians bear characteristics of their Lord.
Some may not be Christian, but meaty appear so as they look to have Christian traits. There are Tates among the wheat, and they will hear the words "I never knew you" even though they appeared to have "good works'.
But some may call themselves Christian while bearing out hatred for their brothers and their enemies. These (according to Scripture) "will not inherit the kingdom of God". They are like branches to be "cut off" and "consumed by fire'.
Well, for one thing, you're misapplying the verses you're quoting. Paul is not describing classes of truth, as if there were such a thing. Paul is describing classes of things: spiritual and carnal; or eternal and temporal; or heavenly and earthly.
And the phrase from the translation you're is using is 'spiritual thoughts,' or 'concepts,' not 'spiritual truth.'
I think the NIV captured the sense better:
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
There is no varying class of truth. There is only truth. There are spiritual truths, meaning there are truths about spiritual, or eternal, things. It is no more true that Jesus is the Son of God, than it is that Isaac was the son of Abraham. One is an eternal reality, and the other was temporal.
All that Paul is saying is that they use inspired speech ( i.e. Moses and the prophets as well as the revelations the Apostles themselves received, and that we now have in our Bibles ) to teach the spiritual realities of the Gospel, beginning with the "message of the Cross," 1 Corinthians 1:18 , which is foolishness to those who are carnal, and a message that requires faith to receive.
What is the message of the Cross? (and what is the Baptist message?) That Christ died in our stead. This is indeed foolishness to the wisdom of the world. What? "God is a child-abuser!" they shout.
But you've gone off the rails with this passage in the style of Kenneth Copeland and others with the notion that you can have a knowledge of a supposedly higher, or a more true truth than that revealed in the Scriptures.
[edited to add] LOL and now you're calling everyone who is reprooving you tares among the wheat.
Yes, almost gnostic...Well, for one thing, you're misapplying the verses you're quoting. Paul is not describing classes of truth, as if there were such a thing. Paul is describing classes of things: spiritual and carnal; or eternal and temporal; or heavenly and earthly.
And the phrase from the translation you're is using is 'spiritual thoughts,' or 'concepts,' not 'spiritual truth.'
I think the NIV captured the sense better:
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
There is no varying class of truth. There is only truth. There are spiritual truths, meaning there are truths about spiritual, or eternal, things. It is no more true that Jesus is the Son of God, than it is that Isaac was the son of Abraham. One is an eternal reality, and the other was temporal.
All that Paul is saying is that they use inspired speech ( i.e. Moses and the prophets as well as the revelations the Apostles themselves received, and that we now have in our Bibles ) to teach the spiritual realities of the Gospel, beginning with the "message of the Cross," 1 Corinthians 1:18 , which is foolishness to those who are carnal, and a message that requires faith to receive.
What is the message of the Cross? (and what is the Baptist message?) That Christ died in our stead. This is indeed foolishness to the wisdom of the world. What? "God is a child-abuser!" they shout.
But you've gone off the rails with this passage in the style of Kenneth Copeland and others with the notion that you can have a knowledge of a supposedly higher, or a more true truth than that revealed in the Scriptures.
[edited to add] LOL and now you're calling everyone who is reprooving you tares among the wheat.
So you do not believe there are things natural man can understand but that they cannot understand spiritual things?
First, Pilate posed the question better: "What is truth?"
Jesus is the Truth. John 14:6 .
The Bible contains the truth about the Truth, according to the verses you're citing, but there is no biblical doctrine that saves us. It is a Person that saves us.
If Jesus apprehends us, then we have been apprehended by the Truth, even if we don't fully apprehend it ourselves. His commandment still stands: "Learn of Me." So you have come very close to what was being preached, but you missed the critical point and hit on a quasi-gnostic and 'new age' concept of spirituality. It's not that we can know a truth beyond the doctrines of the Scriptures, it's that we can be known by the Truth while yet ignorant. But we won't remain there, for the Spirit guides us into all truth. John 16:13.
I'm not describing classes of truth either. That is what zi mean. You do not understand.Well, for one thing, you're misapplying the verses you're quoting. Paul is not describing classes of truth, as if there were such a thing. Paul is describing classes of things: spiritual and carnal; or eternal and temporal; or heavenly and earthly.
And the phrase from the translation you're is using is 'spiritual thoughts,' or 'concepts,' not 'spiritual truth.'
I think the NIV captured the sense better:
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
There is no varying class of truth. There is only truth. There are spiritual truths, meaning there are truths about spiritual, or eternal, things. It is no more true that Jesus is the Son of God, than it is that Isaac was the son of Abraham. One is an eternal reality, and the other was temporal.
All that Paul is saying is that they use inspired speech ( i.e. Moses and the prophets as well as the revelations the Apostles themselves received, and that we now have in our Bibles ) to teach the spiritual realities of the Gospel, beginning with the "message of the Cross," 1 Corinthians 1:18 , which is foolishness to those who are carnal, and a message that requires faith to receive.
What is the message of the Cross? (and what is the Baptist message?) That Christ died in our stead. This is indeed foolishness to the wisdom of the world. What? "God is a child-abuser!" they shout.
But you've gone off the rails with this passage in the style of Kenneth Copeland and others with the notion that you can have a knowledge of a supposedly higher, or a more true truth than that revealed in the Scriptures.
[edited to add] LOL and now you're calling everyone who is reprooving you tares among the wheat.
I am not saying people who disagree with me are Tates among the wheat.
I am saying we do not know the tares because they look like wheat (these look like Christians, probably believe they are, but their "good works" are of themselves and not God).
I am saying that we judge fruit. Scripture says those who hate their brother will not inherit the kingdom of God. So when we see a "hater" we can know they are nominal Christians regardless of the doctrine they claim.
Again, there are no varying classes of truth. But one example of a spiritual truth is that we are saved by grace through faith.
Another is that faith is counted as righteousness.
And another is that without faith, it is impossible to please God.
A NT example of using Spirit-taught words, that can only be received by those with the Spirit of God to describe a spiritual reality is that it is through faith that we understand that the worlds were made by the word of God. Hebrews 11:3 In other words, we can understand Moses only through faith.
An example from our own interactions where I used Spirit-taught words in an attempt to illuminate the substitutionary nature of Christ's Atonement was in quoting the law, and the Apostles Peter and Paul. But it requires faith to receive them.
So, anyway. I would advise you to focus on the message of the Cross. Meditate on the Spirit-taught words written of it until it apprehends you, and then you might not go so far off the rails in other things.
Again, nobody is saying there are "varying classes of truth".
If an atheist reads Scripture the atheist may be able to understand the sentences. Are you claiming the atheist can understand the spiritual things of Scripture? Or are you claiming the spiritual things are false?
I have a question or two.
Did Jesus of Nazareth born of the virgin Mary, the Christ, the Son of the living God, the one who did not know sin, need to be saved. out of death, in order for man to be saved?
Did the Word literally become flesh? Did the Word made flesh, literally die? Being dead was the Word made flesh corruptible yet did not see corruption and was raised out of death, no more to return to corruption? Raised from the dead, no more to die?
Is Jesus the Son of God being raised out of the dead, no more to return to corruption, by God the Father, the grace of God that brings salvation?
Is that called the grace of life in 1 Peter 3:7 of which we, who have the first-fruit of the Sprit, are called heirs, not yet inheritors thereof?
in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;
Heb 1:2
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Rom 8:17
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Luke 1:31,32
------------------------------------------------- When? Before death? While dead? After being raised out of the dead ones?
Truth?
Did Jesus of Nazareth born of the virgin Mary, the Christ, the Son of the living God, the one who did not know sin, need to be saved. out of death, in order for man to be saved?
Did the Word literally become flesh? Did the Word made flesh, literally die? Being dead was the Word made flesh corruptible yet did not see corruption and was raised out of death, no more to return to corruption? Raised from the dead, no more to die?
Is Jesus the Son of God being raised out of the dead, no more to return to corruption, by God the Father, the grace of God that brings salvation?
Is that called the grace of life in 1 Peter 3:7 of which we, who have the first-fruit of the Sprit, are called heirs, not yet inheritors thereof?
in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;
Heb 1:2
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Rom 8:17
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Luke 1:31,32
------------------------------------------------- When? Before death? While dead? After being raised out of the dead ones?
Truth?
Which baptists held to your views?
Strong dislike of aberrant doctrines and teachings, not of fellow believers, just trying to bring biblical correction!
I strongly dislike poor doctrine. The thing is to discuss doctrine - not allow my dislike of bad theology pour over to how I treat another person.
Some Calvinists, for example, give Calvinism a bad name (a complaint James White made).
Jon, your conclusion of what I believe is a strawman. You have yet to exegete 2 Corinthians 2, the very passage you claim to use for your position. I have asked, at least twice, for you to go through these verses and explain what Paul is telling us. The text is the word of God. What is it saying?
1 Corinthians 2:6-16
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
You're not rational. We can have no meaningful interaction.
The unspiritual or natural self can’t receive the gifts of God’s Spirit. There’s no capacity for them. To them they seem foolish. Spirit can be known only by spirit. Having been made alive in the Spirit we can grasp the things of the Spirit.
Indeed, we must be made alive with Christ, by God. (Ephesians 2), but we are looking at 1 Corinthians 2, which you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.
Actually I was talking about 1 Corinthians 2:24. But Ephesians 2 is also a good passage
I am not going to explain the entire chapter to you.
But if there is something you do not understand then I will work with you through the parts you find difficult.
- Status