My own personal Jesus.

[VW]

An excellent quotation, thank you for sharing. Why, though, did you not bold the latter half of this sentence?

(Underlines mine)

Same thing with the one sentence after it. Aquinas is careful to note that "Scripture Alone," to borrow from Luther, isn't sufficient.

And I agree, which is my point regarding Arius. Arius had Scripture, too. Just like the Jehovah's Witnesses do today. Quite frankly, in the Arian case, the systems of private revelation and private interpretation would have been inadequate to deal with the challenge. A position based SOLELY on Scripture interpretation (as Arius' was) cannot be refuted by another mere human opinion. There must be an overarching authority that offers a definitive interpretation to which all the faithful must submit.

Without it, there is chaos, heresy, division. Without it, we have the situation I mentioned in the previous post, where Person A is "told" X by God, and his friend, Person B, is "told" something contrary to that.

I don't want to bring up a whole debate on Sola Scriptura, but as this thread is about personal revelation, I suppose personal interpretation of Scripture would be relevant, too. God made us in His image, but yet it seems we want to spin that on its head and make God out to suit what we want Him to be, not what He is.

Why, if our very salvation is a revelation from God, would we deny that revelation from God is normal for His children. I mean, after all, we are His children, right? And we believe that Jesus is alive, risen from the dead, because we know, in our hearts that this is so. God did reveal this to us. It is His work.

But even more so, salvation is of grace, which is drawing near to God, coming into contact, close and personal contact, with the living God. This is done in faith, through Jesus Christ. And in faith, we receive the Spirit of truth.

It is simple why there is such a lack of agreement in the body of Christ. She has denied her truth, which is Jesus, living in us by His Spirit, teaching and correcting and healing and making us one in Him. Instead we have replaced the Spirit of truth with the scriptures, which came from the Spirit.

I love the scripture, and as I seek to understand God, I ask God to teach me. He most often does so through the scriptures. Oddly enough, this is how Paul was taught his doctrine, and I believe every other disciple of Christ, who was willing to listen.

The body of Christ, the bride, is not a structure, (well, other than being the temple of God, a spiritual structure.) No, the body of Jesus is a living organism, living and breathing and added to by the Spirit as God sees fit. To think that this living body would or could be structured according to what we understand is ludicrous. It is God's work, not ours. As Jesus said about those who love the light, (Jesus is the light,) that they would come to the light that their deeds might be revealed as having been wrought in God.

Our brains are wondrous things. They are also deceived, and can be deceived easily. Arrogance lives and breaths with intelligence. The smarter one is, the easier it is for arrogance to enter, because he is able to explain and understand so many things, easily. And things make sense to him. And he is wrong.

Let everyone know that truth comes by the light of God, Jesus in us, the hope of glory. If we would please Him, we would reject everything which is of the flesh, including our intelligence. Trust not in your own understanding, even if it is understanding of the scriptures. Rather trust in the Spirit of God.

 

[1still_waters]

I may step on some toes here, so put on your steel toed boots.

Some may appeal to 'God showed me' because they're just too lazy to open up other books and do research from others who clearly studied 'x scripture' more than they have.

Some may appeal to 'God showed me' because a part of their pride loves to believe God is just giving them all these special revelations. Hey it feels good to have the maker of the cosmo's whispering things in your ear.

Others may appeal to 'God showed me' because they know it's the ultimate trump card and they really don't want to do the mental exercise of considering other views. How does one argue with God?

On the other hand, there are some who are not comfortable with 'God showed me' because they just can't rest in peace when others don't view things just like they do! It drives them up the wall when they can't even get someone to consider their point of view. After all it's THEIR point of view! They simply can't live at peace if someone disagrees or thinks they have a better opinion than themselves.

So everyone just needs to be aware of pride, laziness, a sense of your own spiritual importance and living at peace if someone doesn't agree with you!

 

[Jordan9]

VW,

I'm not denying that God does reveal things to His children. However, even God, as Christ on Earth, said to test a tree by its fruit. The "fruits" of some of these so-called revelations are confusion, ambiguity, chaos. Some of them even deny Christ's godhead, as I've mentioned with our old friend Arius and his "revelation". Truly, according to God's own exhortation, we cannot accept these private revelations as divine in origin.

1still_waters has, I think, more accurately described the origins of these revelations.

 

[VW]

VW,

I'm not denying that God does reveal things to His children. However, even God, as Christ on Earth, said to test a tree by its fruit. The "fruits" of some of these so-called revelations are confusion, ambiguity, chaos. Some of them even deny Christ's godhead, as I've mentioned with our old friend Arius and his "revelation". Truly, according to God's own exhortation, we cannot accept these private revelations as divine in origin.

1still_waters has, I think, more accurately described the origins of these revelations.

I understand. But what I worry about is that in seeking to be free from deception, we deny the very truth, the Spirit of truth, and thus bring about our destruction.

We know that every spirit that confesses that Jesus is come in the flesh, that is, that Jesus is the Christ, is from God. Now the key to this confession is that in His coming in the flesh, He has opened a way into the kingdom of heaven for those who were formerly of the flesh. That in His death and burial and resurrection, we too became alive spiritually in Him, to have life from above, which entails communication from above. We are in Him, and He is in us.

It seems to me that what we want is to be safe, and in that pursuit, we have become dead. This I abhor. Life is why Jesus came, that we might have it. And in the Spirit is life growing to fill us to overflowing. This I long for with all my heart, for all of us.

Thank you,
In His love,
vic

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

The scripture is not God. Never has been God. The scripture is from God.

This all seems obvious enough. I'm not sure what logical relationship it has to the other things you go on to say:

It is the height of pride to think that we can understand God, can know God, by reading what He has caused to be written.

What makes you say this? Much later on you give a qualification "without the Holy Spirit". But I don't know whether you intend for that qualification to apply here too. Assuming, for the moment, that it doesn't:

1. The Bible says things about God that it expects us to understand.

2. The Bible teaches us things about God, such that we can know God (Matt 9:6; Rom. 1:18ff; and the like, but especially 1 John 5:20 “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life&#8221.

3. The Bible is revelation from God.

5. Therefore, God has said things about himself. Clearly, he expects us to understand the things he says about himself and these things that God told us about himself count as knowledge.

Let's say, hypothetically, that God appears to me in a vision and tells me "Hi, Jon, I'm God and I'm a nice person."

Would you say that I can confidently assert that God is a nice person? Would it be arrogance or pride for me to say that I know and understand the fact that God is a nice person?

I don't think this counts as pride, because I'm not claiming to know it for any other reason than that God has revealed it to me. If God says "such and such" I don't see why it would be a bad thing to recognize it and give assent to it.

Now, there may be many other complicating issues that would make it arrogant to claim that I can be absolutely certain that this is from God. For example, maybe I had this "revelation" in a dream. Well, I don't think we can be very certain that a dream is from God, even if it happens to be about God. So under that condition, it may count as arrogance.

...without the Spirit of Truth.

Perhaps this is the key to understanding everything you said before. We can know God and understand things about God, but only with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that there is a sense in which we need the Holy Spirit in order to discern the things of God.

But consider that *all* men know something about God: that he exists, that he is angry at sin and thus righteous, and something of his power and divine nature (Romans 1:18-23).

If you want to claim that *all* men know something of God *through* the Holy Spirit that is fine. But then the point (or qualification) that it needs to be through the Holy Spirit seems to have less significance here; because, we all end up knowing things about God anyway.

For instance, suppose the Three Stooges are making assertions about the way the world is. I approach them and say "You know, you guys can't know anything unless you have brains." The Three Stooges might point out to me "Look, that's all well and good, but we all have brains. So what's your point?"

It is in direct contravention of Jesus' words to seek truth from any place other than the Holy Spirit.

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.

The Holy Spirit teaches us through the Word of God, the Bible. And the promise spoken of in John 16 is, I think, a specific promise to the apostles pertaining to their recording the Scriptures, understanding the significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, guiding the church in disputes and doctrinal issues, and, generally, laying the foundation for the Christian faith. That's why they could say, with authority, things like the following:

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. ” (2 John 9–11)

“If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. ” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15)

“For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ” (Galatians 1:11–12)

And this is why it can be said that the Church is

“built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ” (Ephesians 2:20)

After being associated with church and christians and beliefs and doctrines for over 40 years, I find that we need, must have the Spirit as our guide into all the truth. But I guess that we lack faith in God.
[/COLOR]

Maybe we do need to be guided by the Spirit more than we are. But this doesn't mean we can turn our back on the church and other Christians and go into a closet all by ourselves.

Look at some of the things Christians are teaching: someone on this forum is claiming Adam is the devil. I know a man who claims that the Devil had sex with Eve and that some people really are literally children of the devil. There is a person, Harold Camping, claiming that the world will end on May 21st, 2011.

These persons think they are every bit as led by the Holy Spirit as you do. I'm sure they think they need no church or other Christians to help them arrive at the truth.

They've taken their Bible, went into their closet, and let the "Holy Spirit" reveal hidden mysteries to them.

If the Holy Spirit guides each Christian, then it would be foolish to think you can cut yourself off from that community. That community often serves as a corrective for when we deceive ourselves, thinking we are led by the Spirit but in fact being led by the devil or, more likely, the devil in the mirror (you).

When persons try to become lone rangers, they often end up neurotic and kooky. Persons who live within a community usually get those hard, kooky edges knocked off. It has a normalizing effect because other persons may be able to see things that we are blind and they may be being led by the Spirit where and when we are not.

 

[mpaper345]

Scripture is plain and simple what it says,how can people get different interpretations of it.
Scripture speaks for itself,but some people go against scripture for their own interpretation or tradition.
How can you get different interpretations of scripture.

When it come to the salvation plan it is plain and simple what must be done to be saved,although some people will go against scripture on what it means.

When it comes to some symbolic things to tell of spiritual things,some people might get that wrong.

Like Jesus being at the right hand of God,which does not mean that Jesus has a throne next to the Father,for there is only one throne in heaven and one who sits on that throne,which is the throne of God and the Lamb.The only person we will see in heaven is Jesus,who is both God and the Lamb.
Jesus at the right hand of God means that God gave all power and authority to the man Christ Jesus until a certain time,which is represented by Jesus being at the right hand of God,and God's right hand represents power,wisdom,and salvation,and Jesus is the power and salvation of God.

When it comes to prophesy some people might get that wrong,especially in time past,when they could not see clearly as we can see now of the endtimes.

Like some people that think that the lion,bear,and leopard are America,Great Britain,and Germany,when they are Babylon,Medo-Persia,and Greece.

But people who have an interpretation of the symbolic or prophesy and it is wrong,either wanted to believe that they had the right interpretation,or they did not study it enough and had an interpretation of it.

If a person is not sure what an interpretation is should wait until they are sure instead of coming to a conclusion of scripture that is wrong.

Some people do not have a good understanding of the whole Bible and will believe something of one scripture and not realize that their interpretation of that scripture is contradicted by any scripture.

Some people will believe traditions of men,and will ignore scriptures that contradict their scriptures.

Some people believe saved by works,and some people believe not saved by works,for the Bible says both,but some people that believe saved by works,ignore the not saved by works not understanding what it means,and some people that believe not saved by works will ignore saved by works not knowing what it means,and do not try to reconcile scripture to come to an understanding of the two.

The Bible says saved by works not saved by works,which are both true,and not a contradiction,but people ignore the other one in favor of their belief and do not try to reconcile scripture.

If you believe not saved by works you cannot ignore saved by works without understanding it.

Not saved by works means that we are not saved by any works that we do to get to heaven without confessing Christ as our savior like false religions or people that say I believe in a God,or people that try to get to heaven by the flesh.

Saved by works means that we have to have works to have faith activated in our life,and we are saved by our faith.
The Bible says work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,for nothing gets done unless we first want to do it.

We can know the Holy Bible is true and the Koran is not true.

God said that He identifies that He is the one true God by showing us prophesy,the end from the beginning.God showed us the whole history of mankind and said no other man or religion will be able to do the same proving the He is the one true God.

God told us the whole history of mankind,and told us of every world power that would spring up from Egypt to the antichrist,and many more prophesies that have come to pass and will come to pass.

Matt

 

[VW]

Did not say anything about knowing about God. I said know God.

The rest of your remarks are not worth answering, as they are an obsfucation.

You take what I say and twist it to mean something else. Never said anything about ignoring other christians, although I think that I will ignore you in the future, although I must stand against your doctrine, which is a path to destruction.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

An excellent quotation, thank you for sharing. Why, though, did you not bold the latter half of this sentence?

Because it was irrelevant. You indicated that Arius was able to sufficiently support his heresy from Scripture:

"[Arius] could and did provide the Scripture to back up his belief. So, according to this idea of "private revelation", Arius was spot on."

I don't think this is correct and I don't think the earlier church fathers would have thought it was correct either.

You also made the following statement:

"I don't buy the recent idea of 'Scripture interprets Scripture.'"

So my only point in providing the quote was to address these two claims. Augustine taught that the clearer parts of Scripture should interpret the less clear. So obviously it's not a new idea. And the idea is simply common sense. If you want to know what I mean when I use a particular word, a good idea is to look at other places I use the word. If Scripture says "be loving" it seems like common sense to look for other places in Scripture that give examples of love. Thus, these other Scripture passages on examples of love interpret the Scriptural command to "be loving." Scripture interprets Scripture.

Aquinas is careful to note that "Scripture Alone," to borrow from Luther, isn't sufficient.

You're reading contemporary Roman Catholicism into Aquinas. I find that anachronistic. Aquinas wasn't around when Luther was. In that quote, he is not concerned to argue against the idea of Sola Scriptura. So he isn't be careful to note that Scripture alone is insufficient.

In fact, he doesn't say anywhere in that quote that Scripture alone is insufficient. He simply points to Scripture and the church as authorities. But he doesn't explain how these authorities relate to one another. He doesn't try to develop the idea that the Church, least of all the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today, is an equal authority.

If you read my posts, you'll find that I often appeal to logic as an authority. I also appeal to Scripture as an authority. Sometimes I will appeal to Christian tradition and teaching as an authority.

If you assume from that that I hold all of them to be equal authorities then you're simply reading too much into my writings.

Now, I'm not trying to say that Aquinas would have held to Sola Scriptura. I'm only saying that he definitely does not say, in this quote at least, that Scripture is insufficient.

Quite frankly, in the Arian case, the systems of private revelation and private interpretation would have been inadequate to deal with the challenge.

I'm aware that modern Roman Catholics try to make this claim, sort of as a scare tactic: "if you reject the Pope no one can save you from Arianism!"

But I think you've misunderstood Aquinas. Here is a more clear quote to help out:

"The Arians likewise attacked this truth by their errors, in confessing that the Father and the Son are not one but several gods; although the authority of Scripture forces e to believe that the Son is true God."

(Contra Gentiles 1.42.24).​

The "e" there is a misprint (here is the source (link) the "e" should either be "everyone" or "us")

So while your position may be in vogue with current Roman Catholic apologetics, I don't see that it reflects what anyone held to historically.

A position based SOLELY on Scripture interpretation (as Arius' was) cannot be refuted by another mere human opinion. There must be an overarching authority that offers a definitive interpretation to which all the faithful must submit.

There are several problems here.

1. You are assuming that Arius sufficiently exegeted Scripture. So that Scripture doesn't actually teach that Jesus is God. Instead, the Church teaches that Jesus is God. I don't buy that.

2. You're assuming that the persons in the church (Roman Catholic Church?) are not giving their own "mere human opinion." I don't buy that.

3. You're assuming that the church can somehow be this overarching authority that Scripture can't be. I don't buy that either.

If we need a magisterium to interpret God speaking in Scripture, then I don't see why we wouldn't need a magisterium to interpret God speaking through the magisterium. If God can't speak clearly through Scripture, I have no reason to think he can speak clearly through a magisterium.

Without it, there is chaos, heresy, division. Without it, we have the situation I mentioned in the previous post, where Person A is "told" X by God, and his friend, Person B, is "told" something contrary to that.

The Roman Catholics aren't exactly a unified bunch. Google the word "Sedevacantist" and see for yourself.

God made us in His image, but yet it seems we want to spin that on its head and make God out to suit what we want Him to be, not what He is.

I think a good example would be the Pope trying to be an alter christus.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Did not say anything about knowing about God. I said know God.

You also used the terms "understand God" and "know the truth of God" and implied that we couldn't do either of these either (without the help of the Spirit?).

Apparently, by these terms, you mean something other than knowing truths about God and understanding truths about God. We apparently agree that persons all persons (Romans 1:18ff) understand things about God. But you don't think that this means we can say that we understand God.

So my question is, in what sense? How are you using the term "understand God"?

At least ONE thing that a person could mean when they say "no one can understand God" or "no one can know the truth of God" is that no one knows anything about God. Christians don't know or understand God any better than Muslims or Buddhists. Why? Because no one can understand God.

So I don't think I've twisted your words, I may have misunderstood them, but I don't think I was entirely unwarranted to interpret them they way I did.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

While I do not believe that we can personalize Jesus, I do believe that we can know Jesus intimately. I believe that this occurs through a combination of the objective information found in scripture ("knowing about Jesus") and through the work of the Holy Spirit (experiencing Jesus). While I do not believe that it is possible to have a saving relationship without the work of the Holy Spirit, there is the rare case of direct revelation alone. but even that must be judged by the objective truths of scripture. I do not believe that the hermenuetic methodology is as stiff as some would have it, nor do I believe in dishonoring the word of God by reading into it what is plainly not there.

 

[VW]

You also used the terms "understand God" and "know the truth of God" and implied that we couldn't do either of these either (without the help of the Spirit?).

Apparently, by these terms, you mean something other than knowing truths about God and understanding truths about God. We apparently agree that persons all persons (Romans 1:18ff) understand things about God. But you don't think that this means we can say that we understand God.

So my question is, in what sense? How are you using the term "understand God"?

At least ONE thing that a person could mean when they say "no one can understand God" or "no one can know the truth of God" is that no one knows anything about God. Christians don't know or understand God any better than Muslims or Buddhists. Why? Because no one can understand God.

So I don't think I've twisted your words, I may have misunderstood them, but I don't think I was entirely unwarranted to interpret them they way I did.

When I read what someone says, I try to see their intent, what the whole of what they have written is saying, and not to take one part and focus on this to the exclusion of all else. What I wrote was in the attempt to explain that while we might have some truths about God from reading scripture, we cannot come to know Him, in the relationship which He would have with us, unless we do so in the Spirit which He has provided for that very purpose. I take exception to the notion that we can accomplish this by scripture alone, the same exception that Jesus took with the scribes and pharisees in His day in this world.

Forgive me for making this focus on something you said, but do you really believe that the Spirit was only given to the apostles to teach them the truth, and then we are left with what was written as our only means of gaining the truth? If this is the case, then I wonder just who the anointing that John says we have, who teaches us all things, and is the truth, and in Him there is no lie, just who is He?

It is obvious that you are very intelligent and have studied very much, and know the bible. But do you actually believe that this has gained you eternal life?

God is spirit, and to know Him, we were born of the Spirit, children of God, having His seed in us. We know Him spiritually. Some would call this experiential knowing, but that is the only true way of ever coming to know anyone, by being with them, spending time with them. What you advocate, while it may seem safer in that there might appear to be less chance for deception, is actually dead and empty, because without the Spirit, there is no life.

Now some have thought in the past that I disparage the bible, that I do not believe in the scriptures. Let me put it this way; I believe the scriptures, but do not believe in the scriptures. I believe in Jesus Christ. I know that the scriptures contain the truth, but I also know that this truth is spiritual, because it is truth about God, and if I would understand correctly, then it must be in the Spirit. Just as the Law is death to me in the flesh, in the Spirit I understand that the Law was a tutor until I came to grace, to show me that I needed His grace, and in the removal of the Law, I have been reconciled to God in Jesus Christ.

I guess I really don't expect you to understand what I am saying. But I still try, because like you, I once believe as you do now. It almost cost me my soul. If not for God's grace and mercy, it would have.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

When I read what someone says, I try to see their intent, what the whole of what they have written is saying, and not to take one part and focus on this to the exclusion of all else.

Me too, but sometimes I don't succeed. That's why I usually ask a lot of questions.

What I wrote was in the attempt to explain that while we might have some truths about God from reading scripture, we cannot come to know Him, in the relationship which He would have with us, unless we do so in the Spirit which He has provided for that very purpose.

Then I think I would agree with this. Perhaps one of the things that lent itself to my misinterpretation of you is that this thread wasn't meant to be about how we come to salvation. It was about discerning the truth value of some claim "x" when the person says it comes from God. Somewhere in this thread, the intellectual sense of the word "knowledge" got confused with the relational sense of the word. That's fine with me, I agree they aren't equivalent and we should realize that, but it confuses the issue and it lends itself to confusion when someone like you comes along and says we cannot know God or understand God (especially since this word "understand" is usually used to refer to propositions about something).

I take exception to the notion that we can accomplish this by scripture alone, the same exception that Jesus took with the scribes and pharisees in His day in this world.

I don't know what you understand "scripture alone" to mean. As it is sometimes wittily put, it's Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was never meant to say that Scripture is our only authority, but that it is our highest authority. It is that against which we measure all other claims.

In this correct sense of Sola Scriptura, I would stand by it and I don't have any reason to think Jesus would object to it.

do you really believe that the Spirit was only given to the apostles to teach them the truth, and then we are left with what was written as our only means of gaining the truth?

I think Jesus is talking to a specific group of people about a specific thing in John 16. I already explained that. He's talking to the apostles about the Holy Spirit guiding them into truth as they lay the foundation of the Church (and thus about matters pertaining to that: the significance of Christ's life, death, and resurrection; the implications this has for the law and Jewish-Christian living; guarding the Church from error etc.)

If this is the case, then I wonder just who the anointing that John says we have, who teaches us all things, and is the truth, and in Him there is no lie, just who is He?

John 16 isn't 1 John 2:27. I was only addressing John 16, because that's all you quoted. I agree that the Holy Spirit guides and helps us understand Scripture. But I wouldn't absolutize that. If you absolutize it, it's pretty baffling as to why the epistles even needed to be written. Aren't they rather superfluous? In fact, why did the gospels need to be written?

Maybe someone will say "the didn't *need* to be written." But then why do we waste our time printing Bibles and trying to translate Bibles? What a waste of money. We should be buying food and just spreading the gospel by word of mouth. Then when persons get saved they can figure the rest out with the Holy Spirit. All those persons who died for trying to translate the Bible were just throwing their lives away.

"So," someone might say, "we need the Bible, but we don't need teachers." But wasn't John himself teaching persons when he wrote the epistle? And other places in Scripture make it clear that there is a needful role for persons to teach:

“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. ” (Titus 1:9–11)

Didn't Paul know that we all have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth? So why do these insubordinate, empty talkers need to be taught sound doctrine. Just have them tap into their inner Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 2:2, 15; 4:2: “The things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.… Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.… Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.”

Again, "Hello, Paul?! Haven't you heard of this Holy Spirit that already teaches us?? We don't need any of that."

But do you actually believe that this has gained you eternal life?

Where did I say head-knowledge gained eternal life? Where did I imply that?

God is spirit, and to know Him, we were born of the Spirit, children of God, having His seed in us. We know Him spiritually. Some would call this experiential knowing, but that is the only true way of ever coming to know anyone, by being with them, spending time with them.

Yes, but one *cannot* have relational knowledge without propositional knowledge (I do not think experiential knowledge is a helpful term here). For example, I can't say that I have a relationship with Jones if I know nothing about Jones.

What you advocate, while it may seem safer in that there might appear to be less chance for deception, is actually dead and empty, because without the Spirit, there is no life.

What exactly do you think that I advocate and where have I advocated it?

Now some have thought in the past that I disparage the bible, that I do not believe in the scriptures. Let me put it this way; I believe the scriptures, but do not believe in the scriptures. I believe in Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure there is a significant difference here. Looks like semantics.

 

[VW]

I am not going to go through point by point.

I will just ask why you have to argue from the negative.

There is a great deal of difference in believing something and believing in something. No semantics at all, and I am surprised that you do not see the difference. You agree that the scriptures are not God, and don't see that believing in something is not the same as believing something. The scripture is from God, and as such I cherish it, but it is not God, and so I do not believe in it, because it does not and cannot save me, only Jesus can do this, as He is God. (Unless you want to make Jesus and the scripture equal. Which, now that I think about it, you have done, because the scripture is the final authority. This I most definitely disagree with.)

I don't do Latin, never have. Probably never will. I don't think that it is a necessary skill. I don't buy the position that the Spirit was given to the apostles in a different way and in a different function than He is given today. Different offices, but it is the same Spirit in all who believe.
And as for you, the anointing which you receive from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

This is the point of the letters of Paul and James and John and Peter, that just as the anointing has taught us to live in Jesus, so we should live in Him. How do we do this? Can you tell me? This is the doctrine of Jesus, that we are to live in Him. That in Him we have life and liberty and joy and peace with God, and above all, we have love, holy love from God, flowing through us into the world, and back to God. And if we are far away, we will never come to know Him, I care not how much one reads and understands about Him, we cannot know Him but by being with and in Him. Hence, He is able to save forever those who are drawing near to God through Him, because He always lives to make intercession for them. Do you imagine that He lives to make intercession for those who are not drawing near to God?

I have only one emphasis, only one! We need to have a deep and living relationship with Jesus, and through Him with the Father. And this relationship is impossible, not unlikely, but impossible without the Spirit of Christ. No amount of study or reading the scripture will bring this about, and without this, one is lost.

 

[machew]

I've only been frequenting here for a few days. But I've already seen the claim made on several occasions by several different persons on several different topics that what a person believes has simply been revealed to them by God. This includes interpretations of the Bible.

They believe in some proposition, call it "x," because God revealed it to them. If challenged with Scripture, then God revealed to them that x is taught in Scripture. If you are having doubts about x, just pray seriously and God will show you that x is right (presumably if God doesn't show you that x is right it's because you aren't praying hard enough or are not sincere).

My question is, is there a way for us as Christians to settle disputes about x? Claiming it's secretly (or personally, if you prefer) revealed to you by God seems to be a conversation ender. After all, if *God* say's it's true, then no one could possible say otherwise. Let God be true, though every man a liar, right? This works with our interpretation of Scripture too, in so far as we claim that our interpretation is divinely inspired by God: God told me this is what it means.

Perhaps the most troubling thing is that "God" obviously didn't reveal x to everyone and some persons think God revealed to them non-x. So it begins to look like everyone's God is really just their imagination. Your own beliefs are unfalsifiable because your own personal Jesus is really just you.

Now I know this question can be more broadly applied to revelation in general: how do we know the Bible is true and not the Koran? And we can try to come up with answers for that, and I think we can come up with some good answers for that. But I'm concerned with the narrower question of how we, as Christians who are supposed to agree on who God is and, therefore, what God says, are supposed to settle disputes about what God says.

I'll not bother giving my own opinion right now.

Interpretation of the Bible and what God said and is saying, has unfortunately always been in dispute in the church. As I have said before in other posts, everyone views reality through their lens. This lens is shaped according to the person's past experiences, parental figures, mentors, and influences. A lot of what we automatically perceive was conditioned into us in the past. At the sub-conscious level we make assumptions and judgments about what people say, about what something we are reading says, people in our environment, and our environment in general without even being aware of it.

This can be a huge problem especially when reading the Bible. Every person on the Earth is biased according to their lens. So, when you have so many people reading the Bible they are bound to read what they want to read, interpret something in an improper context, make assumptions about the writing that the original authors didn't have, and even use the Bible out of context as a weapon against others. The problem is us, not the text. The text in the Bible speaks for itself. But we has humans have no ability on our own to interpret the Bible correctly. Our own human intellect is ultimately limited to the scope that our lens allows us to perceive things. It is for this reason that I believe, that the only correct interpretation of the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit.

I realize this opens the doors to a lot of blasphemous theology. This after all is your main point. But there are many times when you read a verse in the Bible where it touches you and brings a greater awareness of God in your life. Years later your read the same verse and it touches you in a different way in a different situation and in a deeper way. Did the text change? No, obviously not. But the Holy Spirit spoke The Word to your heart as you read it. A lot of people are afraid of the possibility of deception with opening up to this approach with scripture. But I am not, I have learned to judge something by it's fruit. Are people coming to Jesus as their Lord and Savior? Are people receiving more freedom in their life? Are people being discipled and being encouraged to dive into His Word? Do people around me leave my presence more edified and equipped to follow Jesus?

The devil is not going to want these things to happen. So if I read something in the Bible that I didn't interpreted the same way as someone else, what is the fruit of each interpretation? Jesus said only good trees produces good fruit, and only bad trees produce bad fruit. If I get out of the Bible that I should move in signs and wonders to reach the lost, and people get saved, healed, and delivered, should I stop because someone doesn't agree that signs and wonders are for today, at the expense of people being saved?

I also find it extremely important to be accountable to people that I see as mentors(spiritual fathers and mothers). I admit that I don't always have it right, and I feel it is necessary to have someone on the outside telling me "Hey, when you said such and such, or when you did such and such, I'm not sure that was God" A lot of time we are in the worst possible position to judge if we ourselves are in deception or not.

These are just two important ways that I navigate through scripture and the application of scripture to my life. Hopefully all of this makes sense to you.


Blessings,

Machew

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I am not going to go through point by point.

I will just ask why you have to argue from the negative.

I don't know what you mean by this.

There is a great deal of difference in believing something and believing in something. No semantics at all, and I am surprised that you do not see the difference. You agree that the scriptures are not God, and don't see that believing in something is not the same as believing something.

No, I don't see the difference. Why don't you just tell me what the difference is? If I say "I believe people are basically good" how would it be different, in any relevant sense, if I said "I believe in the claim that people are basically good"?

You seem to think it's an obvious yet significant distinction, so it shouldn't be asking much to ask you to explain the distinction.

The scripture is from God, and as such I cherish it, but it is not God, and so I do not believe in it, because it does not and cannot save me, only Jesus can do this, as He is God.

Sine you haven't explained the distinction, this isn't a helpful sentence.

(Unless you want to make Jesus and the scripture equal. Which, now that I think about it, you have done, because the scripture is the final authority. This I most definitely disagree with.)

How have I made them equal?

I don't buy the position that the Spirit was given to the apostles in a different way and in a different function than He is given today. Different offices, but it is the same Spirit in all who believe.

The fact that it's the same Spirit doesn't mean he functions in the same way. The Spirit gave Amos a specific prophecy, I have the same Spirit, but not Amos's prophecy. The Spirit endowed the apostles with special authority and revelation. I have the same Spirit (although it looks like you think I don't), but not the same authority and revelation.

And as for you, the anointing which you receive from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

You're just repeating yourself at this point...

Do you imagine that He lives to make intercession for those who are not drawing near to God?

On several occasions you've made statements like this, assuming that I reject the idea that we need more than head-knowledge to be saved and, now, that he intercedes on behalf of those who don't draw near to him.

I've asked you several times to explain where I said this. Where did I say we only need head-knowledge to be saved?

Where did I say or imply that Christ makes intercession makes intercession on behalf of those who do not draw near to him?

If I never said this and I never implied this (in fact I explicitly denied this on more than one occasion), then why are you bringing up irrelevant points?

Right now, I'm more interested in your answer to these questions than anything else.

I wouldn't mind if you ignored everything else that I've said if you would just answer my question: ***Where did I say or imply that Christ makes intercession on behalf of those who do not draw near to him?***

I have only one emphasis, only one! We need to have a deep and living relationship with Jesus, and through Him with the Father. And this relationship is impossible, not unlikely, but impossible without the Spirit of Christ. No amount of study or reading the scripture will bring this about, and without this, one is lost.

Thanks, but that's irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

(P.S. Charisenexcelcis: off-topic posts are one of the marks of a troll. So you might want to put a little check-box next to your chart on VW. I assume you have one )

 

[livingbygrace]

I don't know what you mean by this.



No, I don't see the difference. Why don't you just tell me what the difference is? If I say "I believe people are basically good" how would it be different, in any relevant sense, if I said "I believe in the claim that people are basically good"?

You seem to think it's an obvious yet significant distinction, so it shouldn't be asking much to ask you to explain the distinction.



Sine you haven't explained the distinction, this isn't a helpful sentence.



How have I made them equal?



The fact that it's the same Spirit doesn't mean he functions in the same way. The Spirit gave Amos a specific prophecy, I have the same Spirit, but not Amos's prophecy. The Spirit endowed the apostles with special authority and revelation. I have the same Spirit (although it looks like you think I don't), but not the same authority and revelation.



You're just repeating yourself at this point...



On several occasions you've made statements like this, assuming that I reject the idea that we need more than head-knowledge to be saved and, now, that he intercedes on behalf of those who don't draw near to him.

I've asked you several times to explain where I said this. Where did I say we only need head-knowledge to be saved?

Where did I say or imply that Christ makes intercession makes intercession on behalf of those who do not draw near to him?

If I never said this and I never implied this (in fact I explicitly denied this on more than one occasion), then why are you bringing up irrelevant points?

Right now, I'm more interested in your answer to these questions than anything else.

I wouldn't mind if you ignored everything else that I've said if you would just answer my question: ***Where did I say or imply that Christ makes intercession on behalf of those who do not draw near to him?***



Thanks, but that's irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

(P.S. Charisenexcelcis: off-topic posts are one of the marks of a troll. So you might want to put a little check-box next to your chart on VW. I assume you have one )

You know, I should have more in common on this with vw than you, but I find myself enjoying your posts. Even if we don't completely agree, they are good to read. I don't know how good your staying power is. These sites can get a bit wearying after a while, but I hope you stick around

 

[charisenexcelcis]

In Greek, you don't believe in something, you believe into it. "Pisteuo eis" not "pisteuo en."
Regarding being a troll, you have been here for one week. VW has been here for five months and a week.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

You know, I should have more in common on this with vw than you, but I find myself enjoying your posts. Even if we don't completely agree, they are good to read. I don't know how good your staying power is. These sites can get a bit wearying after a while, but I hope you stick around

Thanks. But this is how it usually works with me and forums. I hang around for a few weeks, then get bored and disappear for a few months, then remember the name of the site and come back for a few weeks then get bored and disappear for another long period of time.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

In Greek, you don't believe in something, you believe into it. "Pisteuo eis" not "pisteuo en."
Regarding being a troll, you have been here for one week. VW has been here for five months and a week.

So you're saying it's no surprise that he has more check-marks on the troll list than me?

 

[charisenexcelcis]

So you're saying it's no surprise that he has more check-marks on the troll list than me?

I'm saying it is more likely that you are one than he, and I don't believe that you are a troll.