Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

[GWH]

I asked you what is your "creed "that differs from the Nicene and the Apostles Creed. You said I was blind I can't take you serious when you insult and then expect me to listen to you. You are arrogant. Again, long drawn out post just say There is nothing different from my Creed from the ones you listed. Or there is a difference.

Any objective reader can see that you did not see my statements regarding the God, Jesus and the Holy spirit,
(the three members of the Trinity), so stating the fact that you did not see it should not be viewed as an insult.

Saying I am arrogant shows you are ignorant of/blind to the fact that I have amended my summary several times
due to the input of other CC posters. Again, as I said in #807, "I am open to suggestions for improving it and
have made a few adjustments since joining CC, including adding #6 just recently.

Keep in mind/sight that my creed seeks to summarize beliefs that are necessary for salvation at least implicitly.
The normative way of stating God's requirement for salvation (GRFS) per Paul is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord”
(Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6) or per John “Love Jesus as Messiah and Lord” (John 8:42).

Thus, a creed should include only The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in these statements, not secondary doctrines.
IOW, even a child who says he/she believes in Jesus should be able to understand the six points that elaborate what saving faith means/implies.

We can see whether your favorite creeds satisfy this criteria if you want to C&P them here.

 

[CS1]

Any objective reader can see that you did not see my statements regarding the God, Jesus and the Holy spirit,
(the three members of the Trinity), so stating the fact that you did not see it should not be viewed as an insult.

Saying I am arrogant shows you are ignorant of/blind to the fact that I have amended my summary several times
due to the input of other CC posters. Again, as I said in #807, "I am open to suggestions for improving it and
have made a few adjustments since joining CC, including adding #6 just recently.

Keep in mind/sight that my creed seeks to summarize beliefs that are necessary for salvation at least implicitly.
The normative way of stating God's requirement for salvation (GRFS) per Paul is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord”
(Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6) or per John “Love Jesus as Messiah and Lord” (John 8:42).

Thus, a creed should include only The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in these statements, not secondary doctrines.
IOW, even a child who says he/she believes in Jesus should be able to understand the six points that elaborate what saving faith means/implies.

We can see whether your favorite creeds satisfy this criteria if you want to C&P them here.

LOL you said post 804 and 813 now its 807? Again you have long post sir, If missed that in 807 ok I stand corrected. Yet saying people are blind only reinforces your lack of ability to teach others what you want them to know. I am blind to your post. And will place you ignore so my "arrogance" won't provide you with questions.

 

[GWH]

LOL you said post 804 and 813 now its 807? Again you have long post sir, If missed that in 807 ok I stand corrected. Yet saying people are blind only reinforces your lack of ability to teach others what you want them to know. I am blind to your post. And will place you ignore so my "arrogance" won't provide you with questions.

You refuse to be corrected, which is the same as being blind and ignoring.

What I said in #807 was that I am a truthseeker/learner, and I cited evidence,
so if you have a constructive suggestion for the creed, please share it.
Otherwise, I will assume you think it needs no improvement.

 

[GWH]

LOL you said post 804 and 813 now its 807? Again you have long post sir, If missed that in 807 ok I stand corrected. Yet saying people are blind only reinforces your lack of ability to teach others what you want them to know. I am blind to your post. And will place you ignore so my "arrogance" won't provide you with questions.

Also, just to be sure I practice what I preach (constructive comments rather than insulting ad hominems),
may I suggest an appropriate reply to what I said in #811?:

[[[The creed I shared is "Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28)." Do you see that my wording merely elaborates what you said and provides supporting Scripture?
My creed also explained who God is, why we need faith in Christ, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the importance of learning God's Word, all of which you omitted. Which creed/way of stating God's requirement for salvation is better?]]].

It would have been something like, "Yes, I see that your statement of the creed is more complete and thus better than mine."

Instead, you said "The only thing I see, is it seems you do not hold to the Trinity as these two Creeds do.", which is why I said
"The problem seems to be that inferior creeds blind you from seeing the NT creed, which is what I attempt to share/reflect.
Again, your creed is inadequate because it is too short and did not even mention the Trinity, whereas mine does."

Then you complained about me referring to your not seeing what I said as being blind, when the appropriate response would have been something like, "Oh yes, I see now that your creed refers to God, His Son and the Holy Spirit." instead you caviled about me not using the term Trinity, even though it was never used by Jesus or Paul.

 

[GWH]

Testing and harmonizing Scripture correctly necessitates using logic and semantics, including the following:

1. Both-and logic instead of only either-or. Sometimes the truth involves choosing one or the other of a binary option,
such as in Deut. 30:19, but sometimes it requires combining two truths, such as God is omnipotent (Rom. 9:18-29) and
God is omniloving (1Tim. 2:3-4) and just (Rom. 3:3-6, 21-26, 4:5, 5:1, 9:14).

2. Understanding that saving faith frequently is expressed/indicated by use of the present progressive/persevering tense,
so verses speaking of believers having eternal life such as John 10:28 assume persevering faith or desire to cooperate with
God's Word/Holy Spirit/Love (Rom.5:5) rather than to commit apostasy, which is blasphemy (Heb. 6:4-6).

3. Exercising discernment by recognizing implication and generalization instead of Scripture to state everything explicitly.
For example, just because it is stated that Jesus prayed for his present and future disciples in John 17:9&20 does not imply
that Jesus did not love everyone in the world and pray for them to be evangelized by his disciples (John 3:16, Matt. 28:19-20).

4. Loving truth that motivates willingness to learn new truth and amend previous wrong understanding (2Thes. 2:10),
especially heresy that corrupts the Gospel and demeans divine omnilove (1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14,
Eph. 3:17b-19, EPH 5:2, 1TM 2:3-4) and justness (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3).

Are there other types of divine/loving logic that right hermeneutics requires/includes?

Now where were we before that spat in our chat?

I had posted the above, and @CS1 commented, "any method used to interpret the word of God without a personal relationship with Christ, that don't Place Christ as the Supreme Authority on which all scriptures are built on, and help of the Holy Spirit, will never come to understand the word of God."

Most likely this comment is based on what Paul said in 1Cor. 1&2 about the message of the cross being foolishness to those who are perishing, but that interpretation ignores/fails to see two passages in chapter one:

First, the message of the cross was NOT foolishness to those who called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1Cor. 1:2).
Second, Paul appeals to all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to agree with one another (1Cor. 1:10).

These verses prompt two questions:

First, on what should believers agree if not the Gospel creed?
Second, what is a good statement of the Christian creed?

Does anyone know of any creed better than the one compiled from Scripture that I propose?

 

[GWH]

Now where were we before that spat in our chat?

I had posted the above, and @CS1 commented, "any method used to interpret the word of God without a personal relationship with Christ, that don't Place Christ as the Supreme Authority on which all scriptures are built on, and help of the Holy Spirit, will never come to understand the word of God."

Most likely this comment is based on what Paul said in 1Cor. 1&2 about the message of the cross being foolishness to those who are perishing, but that interpretation ignores/fails to see two passages in chapter one:

First, the message of the cross was NOT foolishness to those who called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1Cor. 1:2).
Second, Paul appeals to all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to agree with one another (1Cor. 1:10).

These verses prompt two questions:

First, on what should believers agree if not the Gospel creed?
Second, what is a good statement of the Christian creed?

Does anyone know of any creed better than the one compiled from Scripture that I propose?

It just so happens that on the Kissed History of Beliefs thread we are at the point when the Nicene Creed was compiled,
and what was said there is also relevant here:

Here are my comments on the complete Nicene Creed.

1. We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
GWH - So far, so good, except that Scripture supporting this should be cited, such as Genesis 1. Even a child who is old enough to be a sinner is able to understand that sin is not cooperating with his/her heavenly parent.

2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
GWH - This is too wordy and also lacks Scripture references. A creed should express only what is necessary to understand and believe in order to be saved, and understanding the Trinity in detail is not required, but only that Jesus is God manifested as Messiah or Savior from just punishment of sin.

3. and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
GWH - Incarnate needs to be explained as God/God's Spirit manifested as a man, but it is not necessary to understand virgin birth.

4. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
GWH - It is necessary to know that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and arose to heaven. Scripture would be good.

5. and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.
GWH - It is necessary to believe that after death those who are saved will be happy in heaven, but not those who hate God/Jesus.

6. And in the Holy Spirit. // And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father;
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
GWH - Again, it is not necessary to understand the Trinity in order to be saved, but even a child can understand that God is invisible Spirit, the Spirit of Love and Truth. (1John 4:7-5:6)

7. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
GWH - It is necessary to understand that "catholic" refers to all of those who worship or believe in God/Christ, who are a spiritual body or church, and that holy means "saved" and that "apostolic" refers to those who first believed and wrote the Bible, mainly John, Peter--and Paul.

8. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
GWH - It is not necessary to understand the (didachaic) doctrine of baptism in order to be saved but only to believe in God and the (kerygmatic) Gospel.

9. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
GWH - This restates #5 and thus should be combined with it.

Do y'all understand why the creed needs to confine itself to kerygma elements?

 

[GWH]

The creed should state beliefs that God requires every Christian to hold at least implicitly in order to be saved,
which grants Christ's prayer for spiritual unity among his followers (in John 17:20-23). Chat should agree regarding
the creed before discussing secondary doctrines that divide the body into denominations with differing beliefs about details.

The goal of this thread on hermeneutics is to promote as much agreement as possible on interpretation of as much Scripture as possible by triangulating from these two guiding teachings:

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

Guided by God's Word/Holy Spirit, Paul revealed how to be saved from physical death and from unhappy ultimate existence that is the just consequence of immorality/evil-doing: “IF you believe in the Lord Jesus, you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31) This is God's requirement for salvation (GRFS) in a nutshell. IF connotes God’s condition for repentance (cf. the IFs in John 8:7, 14, 16, 19, 24, 31, 36, 39, 42, 46, 51, 54, 55). Jesus Himself expressed GRFS even more succinctly using three, four and five letter words: “Ask… seek… knock…” (Matt. 7:7).

These statements indicate that God enables/gives every sinful soul the ability and opportunity to repent of sin (Matt. 4:17) and seek salvation (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11), which might be called “seeking grace” (Tit. 2:11, Eph. 2:8). As Heb. 11:6 states: “[God] rewards those who earnestly seek him” (cf. Isa. 45:19). Seeking God is the beginning of saving faith, and not seeking God or rejecting His salvation in Christ is the essence of evil atheism or faith in I-dolatry (Rom. 3:11, 1:18-23). All humans sin, but every sinner has the opportunity to repent/have saving faith per God's Word/Holy Spirit: Gen. 3:6, Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15, 2Chron. 7:14, Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 23:37, John 3:16, 6:39, Acts 2:38, 16:31, 28:27, Rom. 1:20, 2:4, 11&15, 3:22, 4:23-24, 5:15&19, 10:9-13, 11:32, Gal. 3:8&14, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 2:10-11, Col. 1:19-23, 1Tim. 2:3-4, etc.

 

[GWH]

The writer of Heb. 12:4-11 indicates that divine wrath is intended as loving discipline for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (Pro. 3:12, Isa. 33:14-15 Rev. 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will (such as Josh. 6:17-24, 8:2&24 & 10:28-40, 11:6-23), then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.

The justice of God is a source of comfort and joy to those who have decided to accept His loving Lordship, but it is experienced as judgment or wrath by those who rebel against Him (Isa. 13:13, Rom. 1:18, Rev. 19:11). The fire that warms (purifies) also burns (punishes). Stating God’s requirement for salvation negatively: a person would do well (be wise) not to reject Him in order not to experience the miserable but just consequence (John 3:17-18). Just consequences teach good behavior.

Another important element in this Bible-based hermeneutic is that everyone lives by fallible faith/ belief/opinion and sufficient knowledge of evidence rather than by absolute certainty or proof or coercion (2Cor. 5:7), so humility is needed. A logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (Heb. 11:6, Acts 13:10). Humanity’s understanding of God progressed through the millenniums, so that the OT was superseded by the NT, which is the apex of divine revelation (Heb. 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).

This hermeneutic seeks to harmonize disparate Scriptures as taught by Paul (in 1Thes. 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in Matt. 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. Considering both sides of an issue or doctrine is called dialectical theology. An unbiased interpreter wants to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. Truth is One: the whole truth combines partial truths without sawing!

 

[OMC]

To be clear, I follow no global belief system and stand solely on scripture. That said, would you prefer to choose a position to discuss, or should I browse the page and pick one?

 

[OMC]

1. We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
GWH - So far, so good, except that Scripture supporting this should be cited, such as Genesis 1. Even a child who is old enough to be a sinner is able to understand that sin is not cooperating with his/her heavenly parent.

2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
GWH - This is too wordy and also lacks Scripture references. A creed should express only what is necessary to understand and believe in order to be saved, and understanding the Trinity in detail is not required, but only that Jesus is God manifested as Messiah or Savior from just punishment of sin.

3. and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
GWH - Incarnate needs to be explained as God/God's Spirit manifested as a man, but it is not necessary to understand virgin birth.

4. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
GWH - It is necessary to know that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and arose to heaven. Scripture would be good.

5. and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.
GWH - It is necessary to believe that after death those who are saved will be happy in heaven, but not those who hate God/Jesus.

6. And in the Holy Spirit. // And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father;
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
GWH - Again, it is not necessary to understand the Trinity in order to be saved, but even a child can understand that God is invisible Spirit, the Spirit of Love and Truth. (1John 4:7-5:6)

7. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
GWH - It is necessary to understand that "catholic" refers to all of those who worship or believe in God/Christ, who are a spiritual body or church, and that holy means "saved" and that "apostolic" refers to those who first believed and wrote the Bible, mainly John, Peter--and Paul.

8. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
GWH - It is not necessary to understand the (didachaic) doctrine of baptism in order to be saved but only to believe in God and the (kerygmatic) Gospel.

9. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
GWH - This restates #5 and thus should be combined with it.

Do y'all understand why the creed needs to confine itself to kerygma elements

your critique is accurate in the sense that the Nicene‑style creed includes far more than the kerygma, and Scripture never presents metaphysical Trinitarian formulations, eternal generation, procession, ecclesial identity, or baptismal doctrine as requirements for salvation; the apostolic preaching in Acts confines itself to the essentials — one God the Creator (Gen 1:1; Acts 17:24), Jesus as God’s manifested Messiah (John 1:14; Acts 2:36), His death for sins (1 Cor 15:3), His resurrection (1 Cor 15:4), His exaltation (Acts 2:33), His future judgment (Acts 17:31), and the promise of eternal life (John 3:16) — and nothing beyond that is ever demanded of the repentant sinner.
So when the creed expands into “begotten before all ages,” “Light of Light,” “of one essence,” “proceeds from the Father,” “catholic and apostolic church,” and “one baptism for remission,” it moves from kerygma into catechesis, which is legitimate for teaching but not for defining what must be believed to be saved.
In that sense, yes — your analysis conforms to Scripture: a saving creed must confine itself to kerygma essentials, because the apostles never required metaphysical comprehension, only faith in the God who created, the Christ who died and rose, and the Lord who will judge and give life.

 

[GWH]

your critique is accurate in the sense that the Nicene‑style creed includes far more than the kerygma, and Scripture never presents metaphysical Trinitarian formulations, eternal generation, procession, ecclesial identity, or baptismal doctrine as requirements for salvation; the apostolic preaching in Acts confines itself to the essentials — one God the Creator (Gen 1:1; Acts 17:24), Jesus as God’s manifested Messiah (John 1:14; Acts 2:36), His death for sins (1 Cor 15:3), His resurrection (1 Cor 15:4), His exaltation (Acts 2:33), His future judgment (Acts 17:31), and the promise of eternal life (John 3:16) — and nothing beyond that is ever demanded of the repentant sinner.
So when the creed expands into “begotten before all ages,” “Light of Light,” “of one essence,” “proceeds from the Father,” “catholic and apostolic church,” and “one baptism for remission,” it moves from kerygma into catechesis, which is legitimate for teaching but not for defining what must be believed to be saved.
In that sense, yes — your analysis conforms to Scripture: a saving creed must confine itself to kerygma essentials, because the apostles never required metaphysical comprehension, only faith in the God who created, the Christ who died and rose, and the Lord who will judge and give life.

I am glad we agree re the creed, but it is NOT clear to me that you do not follow the "global belief system" called TULIP, so I suggest we discuss that topic on the "Resolving..." thread before choosing others. For your convenience I will post on it so it moves to page one.
See you there.

 

[GWH]

The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1John 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, Rom. 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. When considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)

The Bible teaches (Gen. 1:3, John 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, some knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While this interpretation of reality is influenced by the Bible, it also utilizes God-given logical thinking where the Bible seems silent, hoping to be guided by the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17).

Logic is the way every sane soul has access to the supreme Mind or Logos (1Cor. 2:11-16). Right reasoning is the glue that binds all individual truths together in one faith. Logic provides the rationale for believing that the history of humanity is not a farce, and it sustains the hope of experiencing love and joy in a future heavenly existence. The beauty of this hermeneutic is the harmonization of whatever is good and true. However, I realize that—just as frequently happens when a person shares favorite musical or scenic beauty with someone else—it may not move your soul like mine (Matt.11:16-17).

 

[GWH]

God/Truth is One. The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1John 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, Rom. 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. When considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)

The Bible teaches (Gen. 1:3, John 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, some knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While this interpretation of reality is influenced by the Bible, it also utilizes God-given logical thinking where the Bible seems silent, hoping to be guided by the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17).

Logic is the way every sane soul has access to the supreme Mind or Logos (1Cor. 2:11-16). Right reasoning is the glue that binds all individual truths together in one faith. Logic provides the rationale for believing that the history of humanity is not a farce, and it sustains the hope of experiencing love and joy in a future heavenly existence. The beauty of this hermeneutic is the harmonization of whatever is good and true. However, I realize that—just as frequently happens when a person shares favorite musical or scenic beauty with someone else—it may not move your soul like mine (Matt.11:16-17).

Bumped for @OMC and y'all to ponder.

 

[OMC]

Bumped for @OMC and y'all to ponder.

This is a textbook example of Syncretism dressed up as “harmonization,” blending biblical revelation with philosophical Rationalism and modern Universalism under the banner of “God/Truth is One”; I base all authority on scripture, not my own understanding. I’ve already shown in scripture where your error lies. You refuse to accept that as the truth of scripture, so I have nothing more to add, as you’ve already decided you’re correct and the Lord is wrong. I’ll have nothing to do with that.

 

[GWH]

This is a textbook example of Syncretism dressed up as “harmonization,” blending biblical revelation with philosophical Rationalism and modern Universalism under the banner of “God/Truth is One”; I base all authority on scripture, not my own understanding. I’ve already shown in scripture where your error lies. You refuse to accept that as the truth of scripture, so I have nothing more to add, as you’ve already decided you’re correct and the Lord is wrong. I’ll have nothing to do with that.

The Bible reveals that God is One and the Holy Spirit is Truth.
Our own understanding of Scripture is not authoritative.
You have shown your opinion, and I have shared mine.

I bumped the post with the hope you might agree that God’s Spirit is love and truth (1John 4:8 & 5:6),
which means/implies all love (agape, Rom. 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation.
Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture.
When considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. IOW, a full understanding of Scripture includes what is implied as well as what is specified.

The Bible teaches (Gen. 1:3, John 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus it implies that both scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, some knowledge also is gleaned from the right reasoning regarding science and "common sense", which is actually Logos-given logic. IOW, correct interpretation of reality based on both the Bible and logical insights guided by the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17).

However, I realize that—just as frequently happens when a person shares favorite musical or scenic beauty with someone else—it may not move your soul like mine (Matt.11:16-17).

 

[OMC]

The Bible reveals that God is One and the Holy Spirit is Truth.
Our own understanding of Scripture is not authoritative.
You have shown your opinion, and I have shared mine.

“God is One and the Spirit is Truth” is biblical; saying “therefore your view and my view are just opinions” is not.
If our understanding isn’t authoritative, then only Scripture’s categories matter — and Scripture never teaches that all human love is divine agapē, never teaches that all cultural insight is revelation, and never teaches that truth is discovered by harmonizing thesis + antithesis into synthesis.
That’s your interpretive system, not the Bible’s.
The issue isn’t “your opinion vs mine”; it’s biblical revelation vs philosophical imports, and your model only works if implication is treated as revelation, which the apostles never do.

I bumped the post with the hope you might agree that God’s Spirit is love and truth (1John 4:8 & 5:6),
which means/implies all love (agape, Rom. 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation.
Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture.
When considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. IOW, a full understanding of Scripture includes what is implied as well as what is specified.

Your jump from “God is love and truth” to “therefore all human love is divine agapē and all cultural truth is divine revelation” is exactly the move Scripture never makes; the Spirit being truth does not universalize human insight, and agapē does not describe every human affection — those are your philosophical inferences, not biblical implications; the Bible tests, judges, and often contradicts pre‑Christian culture, not harmonizes it through thesis‑plus‑antithesis synthesis, which is a dialectical method, not an apostolic one.

The Bible teaches (Gen. 1:3, John 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus it implies that both scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, some knowledge also is gleaned from the right reasoning regarding science and "common sense", which is actually Logos-given logic. IOW, correct interpretation of reality based on both the Bible and logical insights guided by the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17).

Genesis 1 and John 1 teach that God made the world and God spoke revelation — they do not teach that human reasoning, science, or “common sense” are themselves expressions of the Logos. That jump is your philosophical inference, not a biblical implication. The Spirit guides believers into what God revealed, not into a fusion of Scripture + human logic. Your model only works if human reasoning is treated as divine revelation, and Scripture never does that.

However, I realize that—just as frequently happens when a person shares favorite musical or scenic beauty with someone else—it may not move your soul like mine (Matt.11:16-17).

The disagreement here isn’t about taste; it’s about whether your model is actually found in the text.

 

[GWH]

“God is One and the Spirit is Truth” is biblical; saying “therefore your view and my view are just opinions” is not.
If our understanding isn’t authoritative, then only Scripture’s categories matter — and Scripture never teaches that all human love is divine agapē, never teaches that all cultural insight is revelation, and never teaches that truth is discovered by harmonizing thesis + antithesis into synthesis.
That’s your interpretive system, not the Bible’s.
The issue isn’t “your opinion vs mine”; it’s biblical revelation vs philosophical imports, and your model only works if implication is treated as revelation, which the apostles never do.

Your jump from “God is love and truth” to “therefore all human love is divine agapē and all cultural truth is divine revelation” is exactly the move Scripture never makes; the Spirit being truth does not universalize human insight, and agapē does not describe every human affection — those are your philosophical inferences, not biblical implications; the Bible tests, judges, and often contradicts pre‑Christian culture, not harmonizes it through thesis‑plus‑antithesis synthesis, which is a dialectical method, not an apostolic one.

Genesis 1 and John 1 teach that God made the world and God spoke revelation — they do not teach that human reasoning, science, or “common sense” are themselves expressions of the Logos. That jump is your philosophical inference, not a biblical implication. The Spirit guides believers into what God revealed, not into a fusion of Scripture + human logic. Your model only works if human reasoning is treated as divine revelation, and Scripture never does that.

The disagreement here isn’t about taste; it’s about whether your model is actually found in the text.

Again you construct a straw man to joust with: I indicated by saying "agape, Rom. 6:5-8" that the love affirmed as divine
reflects "God’s operation". Sorry if that was unclear. Ditto re truth.

Scripture does indeed give an example of harmonizing/synthesis in Matt. 4:5-7, as well as in the instances of "eisegesis"
by Jesus and Paul that I have mentioned previously.

An issue is that your opinion is just as fallible as mine, so don't play like a pope with me.

The "jump" is implied by Rom. 1:20 and other references to general revelation.

The need for reasoning by humans is implied by God's speaking, unless your tulip tendency thinks God zaps/programs folks.

Scriptures that affirm the use of logic/reasoning include:

Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)

2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)

3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)

4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)

5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)

6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

 

[OMC]

Again you construct a straw man to joust with: I indicated by saying "agape, Rom. 6:5-8" that the love affirmed as divine
reflects "God’s operation". Sorry if that was unclear. Ditto re truth.

Scripture does indeed give an example of harmonizing/synthesis in Matt. 4:5-7, as well as in the instances of "eisegesis"
by Jesus and Paul that I have mentioned previously.

An issue is that your opinion is just as fallible as mine, so don't play like a pope with me.

The "jump" is implied by Rom. 1:20 and other references to general revelation.

The need for reasoning by humans is implied by God's speaking, unless your tulip tendency thinks God zaps/programs folks.

Scriptures that affirm the use of logic/reasoning include:

Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)

2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)

3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)

4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)

5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)

6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

None of the texts you listed support your claim that human reasoning itself is divine revelation, or that all human love and all cultural truth are God’s operations, or that Scripture teaches a harmonization‑model (thesis + antithesis → synthesis).
Every verse you cited affirms human rational capacity, but none of them say human reasoning = Logos, human affection = agapē, or cultural insight = revelation.
You’re importing a philosophical system and then treating it as biblical implication. The apostles never do that.

 

[GWH]

None of the texts you listed support your claim that human reasoning itself is divine revelation, or that all human love and all cultural truth are God’s operations, or that Scripture teaches a harmonization‑model (thesis + antithesis → synthesis).
Every verse you cited affirms human rational capacity, but none of them say human reasoning = Logos, human affection = agapē, or cultural insight = revelation.
You’re importing a philosophical system and then treating it as biblical implication. The apostles never do that.

You ignored my clarifications and recited your straw men regarding receiving revelation and reflecting divine love.
Perhaps I must ask you in the future to quote rather than paraphrase what I say, which should prevent you from importing
spurious terms such as "itself", "human" and "cultural" in ways that distort my meaning in order to conform to your system.
Thanks for doing that, and I will do the same.

 

[OMC]

You ignored my clarifications and recited your straw men regarding receiving revelation and reflecting divine love.
Perhaps I must ask you in the future to quote rather than paraphrase what I say, which should prevent you from importing
spurious terms such as "itself", "human" and "cultural" in ways that distort my meaning in order to conform to your system.
Thanks for doing that, and I will do the same.

Your objection doesn’t actually touch the point I made, because the issue isn’t whether I “quoted you accurately,” but whether the claims you made logically entail the very categories you now say you didn’t intend.
When you say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” and “truth participates in divine truth,” you may not have used the words “human,” “itself,” or “cultural,” but the moment you apply those claims to all people, all cultures, all reasoning, and all truth‑discoveries, the category becomes universal by definition.
I didn’t distort your meaning; I drew out the implications your own statements require.
If you want to avoid those implications, you must either
(1) restrict your claims to regenerate reasoning, Spirit‑given love, and revealed truth, or
(2) accept that your system collapses the biblical distinction between general revelation and special revelation, creaturely reason and Logos‑revelation, human affection and agapē, cultural insight and Spirit‑illumined truth.
Scripture never merges those categories; you did.
That’s why I pressed the point.
If you want to clarify your actual claim, choose one: do you mean reason as creaturely faculty or reason as revelatory participation? Only one of those fits the biblical pattern.