Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

[GWH]

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.

No, the issue IS that I claim I did not claim what you claim I claimed, so quoting IS necessary.
For example, I did NOT say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” and
“truth participates in divine truth,”, so those should not be in quotes unless you can point to the post #.

What I DO say is that right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ.
I DO say God is love and Spirit-filled Christians reflect divine love to the world.
I DO say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth.
And I DO believe enough of God's love and truth are revealed to all people in all cultures in all of the world per Rom. 1:20,
so that they are without excuse for choosing atheism/I-dolatry/tulipism.

You CAN quote me on these and I expect you will do so in future discussions,
which will hopefully alleviate most of your misunderstanding, so thanks!
TTYL

 

[OMC]

No, the issue IS that I claim I did not claim what you claim I claimed, so quoting IS necessary.
For example, I did NOT say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” and
“truth participates in divine truth,”, so those should not be in quotes unless you can point to the post #.

What I DO say is that right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ.
I DO say God is love and Spirit-filled Christians reflect divine love to the world.
I DO say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth.
And I DO believe enough of God's love and truth are revealed to all people in all cultures in all of the world per Rom. 1:20,
so that they are without excuse for choosing atheism/I-dolatry/tulipism.

You CAN quote me on these and I expect you will do so in future discussions,
which will hopefully alleviate most of your misunderstanding, so thanks!
TTYL

No, you did not say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” or “truth participates in divine truth”;
The issue is that the claims you do make logically entail those categories, even if you never used those exact phrases.

When you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’re not just saying “reason is good,” you’re saying human reasoning participates in the Logos.

When you say Spirit‑filled Christians reflect divine love, you’re not just saying “Christians love,” you’re saying their love participates in divine agapē.

When you say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth, you’re not just saying “truth is unified,” you’re saying human truth‑discoveries participate in divine truth.

And when you say God reveals enough love and truth to all cultures per Rom 1:20, you’re not just saying “general revelation exists,” you’re saying cultural insight participates in revelation.

You may not like those implications, but they follow necessarily from the claims you affirm.
That’s why I pressed the distinction between creaturely reason and revelatory participation — because your system keeps sliding from one into the other.
You didn’t use the exact words I quoted; your claims require the categories I named.

 

[GWH]

No, you did not say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” or “truth participates in divine truth”;
The issue is that the claims you do make logically entail those categories, even if you never used those exact phrases.

When you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’re not just saying “reason is good,” you’re saying human reasoning participates in the Logos.

When you say Spirit‑filled Christians reflect divine love, you’re not just saying “Christians love,” you’re saying their love participates in divine agapē.

When you say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth, you’re not just saying “truth is unified,” you’re saying human truth‑discoveries participate in divine truth.

And when you say God reveals enough love and truth to all cultures per Rom 1:20, you’re not just saying “general revelation exists,” you’re saying cultural insight participates in revelation.

You may not like those implications, but they follow necessarily from the claims you affirm.
That’s why I pressed the distinction between creaturely reason and revelatory participation — because your system keeps sliding from one into the other.
You didn’t use the exact words I quoted; your claims require the categories I named.

When I say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, I am just saying "right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ". Stop misquoting me by omitting the words "right" and "divine"!

Not sure why you seem to think "participating" is something bad (1Pet. 4:13, 2Pet. 1:4, 1Cor. 10:13),
which is akin to partnering (Phil. 1:5), cooperating (Phil. 2:12-13) and fellowshipping (1Cor. 1:9) with God.

 

[OMC]

When I say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, I am just saying "right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ". Stop misquoting me by omitting the words "right" and "divine"!

You’re not being misquoted; you’re being confronted with the implications of your own claim.
Saying right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ still means that whenever a human reasons rightly, he is operating in divine logic, not merely creaturely cognition — which is exactly why your statement necessarily implies participation in the Logos.
The adjectives “right” and “divine” don’t protect your claim; they’re the reason it collapses the distinction between creaturely_reason and revelatory_participation.
If the content of right reasoning is divine, then the act of right reasoning participates in the divine.
Same with love, same with truth.
You didn’t use the word “participation,” but your formulation requires it.

Not sure why you seem to think "participating" is something bad (1Pet. 4:13, 2Pet. 1:4, 1Cor. 10:13),
which is akin to partnering (Phil. 1:5), cooperating (Phil. 2:12-13) and fellowshipping (1Cor. 1:9) with God.

I don’t think participation is bad — Scripture celebrates it (1 Pet 4:13; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 Cor 10:16), but that’s exactly why your claim needs clarity: those passages describe participation in God through union with Christ, not participation in God through human reasoning itself.
When you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’re not describing the kind of participation Peter names; you’re collapsing creaturely reason into divine rationality, which is why your formulation necessarily implies the category of revelatory_participation rather than the biblical category of creaturely_reason.
Participation in Christ is good; participation in the divine essence through human cognitive acts is not what those verses teach.
So the issue isn’t participation — it’s which kind of participation your wording logically entails.

 

[GWH]

You’re not being misquoted; you’re being confronted with the implications of your own claim.
Saying right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ still means that whenever a human reasons rightly, he is operating in divine logic, not merely creaturely cognition — which is exactly why your statement necessarily implies participation in the Logos.
The adjectives “right” and “divine” don’t protect your claim; they’re the reason it collapses the distinction between creaturely_reason and revelatory_participation.
If the content of right reasoning is divine, then the act of right reasoning participates in the divine.
Same with love, same with truth.
You didn’t use the word “participation,” but your formulation requires it.

I don’t think participation is bad — Scripture celebrates it (1 Pet 4:13; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 Cor 10:16), but that’s exactly why your claim needs clarity: those passages describe participation in God through union with Christ, not participation in God through human reasoning itself.
When you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’re not describing the kind of participation Peter names; you’re collapsing creaturely reason into divine rationality, which is why your formulation necessarily implies the category of revelatory_participation rather than the biblical category of creaturely_reason.
Participation in Christ is good; participation in the divine essence through human cognitive acts is not what those verses teach.
So the issue isn’t participation — it’s which kind of participation your wording logically entails.

When you do not omit "right" in the first paragraph, I agree that divine logic participates in the Logos, and I am glad you agree participation is good.

When in the second paragraph you omitted "right" and imported or substituted "human...itself", your wording misquoted and misunderstood my claim.

 

[OMC]

When you do not omit "right" in the first paragraph, I agree that divine logic participates in the Logos, and I am glad you agree participation is good.

When in the second paragraph you omitted "right" and imported or substituted "human...itself", your wording misquoted and misunderstood my claim.

" but that’s exactly why your claim needs clarity:"

 

[GWH]

" but that’s exactly why your claim needs clarity:"

I am trying to be clear. Your quotations instead of importations helps.

 

[GWH]

No, the issue IS that I claim I did not claim what you claim I claimed, so quoting IS necessary.
For example, I did NOT say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” and
“truth participates in divine truth,”, so those should not be in quotes unless you can point to the post #.

What I DO say is that right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ.
I DO say God is love and Spirit-filled Christians reflect divine love to the world.
I DO say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth.
And I DO believe enough of God's love and truth are revealed to all people in all cultures in all of the world per Rom. 1:20,
so that they are without excuse for choosing atheism/I-dolatry/tulipism.

You CAN quote me on these and I expect you will do so in future discussions,
which will hopefully alleviate most of your misunderstanding, so thanks!
TTYL

@OMC, perhaps now that you know explicitly what to quote me on, I will reply again with that understanding:

God does not zap/program/force folks; He communicates/reveals/teaches using words/human/earthly languages.
God can be described as Logos/Reason/Word, and humans are able to receive God's Word because the are created in His image,
having the ability to understand words. When humans understand and agree with God's words, it is because they are reasoning rightly or employing divine logic. All humans are sinners, but God gives them MFW aka Faith or the ability to repent of sin and seek to learn and love the Truth about how to be saved. When they exercise MFW to Faith in God, His Spirit of Love and Truth indwells them, so they reflect divine love to others. God's indwelling may be described as fellowship or participation.

Because God is One, Love pervades creation, so each part or individual truth manifests God/the Whole Truth fractally.
I perceive/discern this truth being taught implicitly by Paul in Rom. 1:20, so general revelation gives divine insight in all cultures to all truthseekers. I know tulipists do not like/agree with my understanding, which is why we end by placing our bets and waiting until we meet at the pearly gate.

 

[OMC]

@OMC, perhaps now that you know explicitly what to quote me on, I will reply again with that understanding:

God does not zap/program/force folks; He communicates/reveals/teaches using words/human/earthly languages.
God can be described as Logos/Reason/Word, and humans are able to receive God's Word because the are created in His image,
having the ability to understand words. When humans understand and agree with God's words, it is because they are reasoning rightly or employing divine logic. All humans are sinners, but God gives them MFW aka Faith or the ability to repent of sin and seek to learn and love the Truth about how to be saved. When they exercise MFW to Faith in God, His Spirit of Love and Truth indwells them, so they reflect divine love to others. God's indwelling may be described as fellowship or participation.

Because God is One, Love pervades creation, so each part or individual truth manifests God/the Whole Truth fractally.
I perceive/discern this truth being taught implicitly by Paul in Rom. 1:20, so general revelation gives divine insight in all cultures to all truthseekers. I know tulipists do not like/agree with my understanding, which is why we end by placing our bets and waiting until we meet at the pearly gate.

Your whole “I did NOT say X, I ONLY said Y” routine is adorable, because the claims you do affirm drag the implications behind them like a tin can tied to a wedding car, and you keep insisting the noise isn’t yours; when you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’ve already crossed the line from creaturely cognition into divine rationality, which is why the participation category follows you home no matter how loudly you insist you never invited it, and when you say Spirit‑filled Christians reflect divine love, you’ve already placed human love inside the sphere of divine agapē, which again is participation whether you stamp your foot or not, and when you say individual truths are part of the whole truth because God is One, you’ve already placed human truth‑discoveries inside the unity of divine truth, which is participation whether you put it in quotes or not; your Rom 1:20 move — “general revelation gives divine insight in all cultures” — is fine as far as it goes, but your fractal‑truth, divine‑logic, divine‑love, divine‑truth chain is exactly why I pressed the distinction between creaturely_reason and revelatory_participation, because your system keeps collapsing them, and your “God communicates through human language, humans understand because they’re made in His image” is perfectly biblical until you bolt on “and when humans agree with God’s words, they’re employing divine logic,” which is the moment you stop describing human reasoning and start describing participation in the Logos — and no amount of “I didn’t say that exact phrase” will save you from the implications your own claims generate; so yes, I’ll quote you accurately, but I’ll also quote the logical consequences, because Scripture demands clarity, not semantic hide‑and‑seek.

 

[GWH]

Your whole “I did NOT say X, I ONLY said Y” routine is adorable, because the claims you do affirm drag the implications behind them like a tin can tied to a wedding car, and you keep insisting the noise isn’t yours; when you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’ve already crossed the line from creaturely cognition into divine rationality, which is why the participation category follows you home no matter how loudly you insist you never invited it, and when you say Spirit‑filled Christians reflect divine love, you’ve already placed human love inside the sphere of divine agapē, which again is participation whether you stamp your foot or not, and when you say individual truths are part of the whole truth because God is One, you’ve already placed human truth‑discoveries inside the unity of divine truth, which is participation whether you put it in quotes or not; your Rom 1:20 move — “general revelation gives divine insight in all cultures” — is fine as far as it goes, but your fractal‑truth, divine‑logic, divine‑love, divine‑truth chain is exactly why I pressed the distinction between creaturely_reason and revelatory_participation, because your system keeps collapsing them, and your “God communicates through human language, humans understand because they’re made in His image” is perfectly biblical until you bolt on “and when humans agree with God’s words, they’re employing divine logic,” which is the moment you stop describing human reasoning and start describing participation in the Logos — and no amount of “I didn’t say that exact phrase” will save you from the implications your own claims generate; so yes, I’ll quote you accurately, but I’ll also quote the logical consequences, because Scripture demands clarity, not semantic hide‑and‑seek.

I knew you would disagree, but hopefully our discussion will help others decide which is the better way to understand Scripture.
Of course, they will need to ask you what your constructive explanation is, because you mainly merely disagree with mine.

 

[Burn1986]

My goal in this thread is to discuss how we can answer Christ's prayer for spiritual unity among his followers that is found in John 17:20-23.
It seems to me that a lot of chat by Christians tends to ignore Jesus' concern, but for those who share it the question is how to achieve it, and the answer involves agreeing on one interpretation of Scripture.

Thus, I would like to begin by sharing a way of interpreting Scripture that is based on the instruction of Paul in 1THS 5:21 to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” As I have been seeking ultimate truth and testing what I have learned, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide my interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements, but before I share them I would like to ask y'all to tell which two most guide your thinking and chatting.

Thanks and love in Christ (LIC)

Can we not say Jesus?

 

[legion]

My goal in this thread is to discuss how we can answer Christ's prayer for spiritual unity among his followers that is found in John 17:20-23.
It seems to me that a lot of chat by Christians tends to ignore Jesus' concern, but for those who share it the question is how to achieve it, and the answer involves agreeing on one interpretation of Scripture.

Thus, I would like to begin by sharing a way of interpreting Scripture that is based on the instruction of Paul in 1THS 5:21 to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” As I have been seeking ultimate truth and testing what I have learned, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide my interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements, but before I share them I would like to ask y'all to tell which two most guide your thinking and chatting.

Thanks and love in Christ (LIC)

It's interesting that you express unity in the way that you do for a long time I have had that same thought that regardless of them which of you or whatever that you take or things to progress forward and for other things to be come reveal everybody should be on the same path or on the same page and what this comes down to in my opinion is a willingness to submit to that even when you are extremely convinced of some other View.

In truth I do not think that these groups can get much bigger than but one or two dozen for example home groups often get much further into the scripture and meaning and all of this stuff because they're on the same path there's a teacher leading them in that direction and so on but the more people you add to this you're much more greater than chance of somebody who will not release their View

I can give you an example of a good one I believe you can give up the gift of salvation I don't believe you can lose it and because of this I'm not a once saved always saved type believer

Personally I can debate anybody for hours is there is no actual proof either way of this you have to overcome too many things and so far in 2000 years nobody has and therefore the question remains if the question is can you truly be saved and then somehow not saved because I do agree but you can't lose it only that you can throw it away

Having said that with the reason being that that things about salvation are very deeply held parts of the belief however you view it. However if you believe something wrong it's not a sin even if I express it to other people.

I can sit in a group in a church without a problem because they are always once shaved always shaved and you can never lose your salvation that doesn't bother me at all that they believe something slightly different and whether you call that ignorance or maturity it doesn't matter because if I calm down the debate and communication so that all we ever do is spend time trying to prove one way or the other we all lose

 

[GWH]

Can we not say Jesus?

The last time I checked, Christ is Jesus.

 

[GWH]

It's interesting that you express unity in the way that you do for a long time I have had that same thought that regardless of them which of you or whatever that you take or things to progress forward and for other things to be come reveal everybody should be on the same path or on the same page and what this comes down to in my opinion is a willingness to submit to that even when you are extremely convinced of some other View.

In truth I do not think that these groups can get much bigger than but one or two dozen for example home groups often get much further into the scripture and meaning and all of this stuff because they're on the same path there's a teacher leading them in that direction and so on but the more people you add to this you're much more greater than chance of somebody who will not release their View

I can give you an example of a good one I believe you can give up the gift of salvation I don't believe you can lose it and because of this I'm not a once saved always saved type believer

Personally I can debate anybody for hours is there is no actual proof either way of this you have to overcome too many things and so far in 2000 years nobody has and therefore the question remains if the question is can you truly be saved and then somehow not saved because I do agree but you can't lose it only that you can throw it away

Having said that with the reason being that that things about salvation are very deeply held parts of the belief however you view it. However if you believe something wrong it's not a sin even if I express it to other people.

I can sit in a group in a church without a problem because they are always once shaved always shaved and you can never lose your salvation that doesn't bother me at all that they believe something slightly different and whether you call that ignorance or maturity it doesn't matter because if I calm down the debate and communication so that all we ever do is spend time trying to prove one way or the other we all lose

Yes, Christian unity is founded on the essential Gospel, but I have never heard a pastor preach on what that creed contains, which is why I urge everyone to agree on the following elaboration:

The normative way of stating the kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6) or “Love Jesus as Messiah and Lord” (John 8:42). The main points of the Christian creed implicit in these statements can be explained or elaborated as follows:

1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
3. 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).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey (Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8) His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4). Such cooperation can be termed “the surrendered life”.
6. This creed summarizes revelation of the NT Gospel/Truth (Matt. 26:13, John 14:6), which fulfilled the OT revelation (Matt. 5:17, John 19:30, Heb. 7:11-10:10) and culminates the search for salvation by souls who know only general revelation (Rom. 1:20, 2:14-16, Matt. 7:12). Seeking begins when souls love truth/repent of false beliefs (2Thes. 2:10&13, Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which is the Way to eternal life God wills, who is the Lord Jesus (Matt. 7:14, John 1:14, 4:24, 14:6). Lacking this love leads to believing lies and debauchery (Matt. 7:6, Rom. 1:18&25-26, 2Thes. 2:11-12).

 

[Burn1986]

The last time I checked, Christ is Jesus.

Why not just say Jesus

 

[OMC]

Yes, Christian unity is founded on the essential Gospel, but I have never heard a pastor preach on what that creed contains, which is why I urge everyone to agree on the following elaboration:

The normative way of stating the kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6) or “Love Jesus as Messiah and Lord” (John 8:42). The main points of the Christian creed implicit in these statements can be explained or elaborated as follows:

1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
3. 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).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey (Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8) His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4). Such cooperation can be termed “the surrendered life”.
6. This creed summarizes revelation of the NT Gospel/Truth (Matt. 26:13, John 14:6), which fulfilled the OT revelation (Matt. 5:17, John 19:30, Heb. 7:11-10:10) and culminates the search for salvation by souls who know only general revelation (Rom. 1:20, 2:14-16, Matt. 7:12). Seeking begins when souls love truth/repent of false beliefs (2Thes. 2:10&13, Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which is the Way to eternal life God wills, who is the Lord Jesus (Matt. 7:14, John 1:14, 4:24, 14:6). Lacking this love leads to believing lies and debauchery (Matt. 7:6, Rom. 1:18&25-26, 2Thes. 2:11-12).

Your six‑point creed is basically a long‑form exposition of the NT’s core call —
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31) and
“Confess Jesus as Lord” (Rom 10:9) — and every point you list is anchored in explicit biblical statements:
God’s character (Deut 6:4; John 3:16),
human sin (Rom 3:23),
Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (Rom 3:22–25; 1 Cor 15:1–4),
repentance and obedience flowing from faith (Luke 2:11; John 14:6),
the Spirit’s indwelling and sanctifying work (Rom 8:6–17),
and the continuity of OT and NT revelation (Matt 5:17; Heb 10:1–10).
The only caution Scripture itself presses is that the NT never presents salvation as accepting a creed but as trusting a Person — Christ crucified and risen — and everything else you list is the doctrinal content that flows from that trust.
Paul’s summary is deliberately simple: “I delivered to you as of first importance… that Christ died for our sins… was buried… and was raised” (1 Cor 15:3–4), and the apostles expand that foundation the way you’re doing.
So yes, unity is built on the essential gospel, and your elaboration is a legitimate attempt to articulate what the NT assumes when it says “Jesus is Lord.”
If you claim to follow the apostolic creed —
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31),
“Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9),
“We preach Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor 4:5) —
Then on what authority do you add a world‑system grid that Scripture never attaches to the gospel itself?
The NT creed is a Person, not a framework; it is Christ crucified and risen (1 Cor 15:3–4), not a philosophical overlay.
So the question is simple: How do you reconcile confessing Jesus as Lord with imposing an interpretive system He never taught, the apostles never preached, and the gospel never requires?
If the creed is Christ, then the authority must be Christ; if the authority is Christ, then the interpretive system must come from Christ; and if the system does not come from Christ, it cannot be part of the creed.

 

[GWH]

Why not just say Jesus

Why not pay attention to post #854?

Your six‑point creed is basically a long‑form exposition of the NT’s core call —
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31) and
“Confess Jesus as Lord” (Rom 10:9) — and every point you list is anchored in explicit biblical statements:
God’s character (Deut 6:4; John 3:16),
human sin (Rom 3:23),
Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (Rom 3:22–25; 1 Cor 15:1–4),
repentance and obedience flowing from faith (Luke 2:11; John 14:6),
the Spirit’s indwelling and sanctifying work (Rom 8:6–17),
and the continuity of OT and NT revelation (Matt 5:17; Heb 10:1–10).
The only caution Scripture itself presses is that the NT never presents salvation as accepting a creed but as trusting a Person — Christ crucified and risen — and everything else you list is the doctrinal content that flows from that trust.
Paul’s summary is deliberately simple: “I delivered to you as of first importance… that Christ died for our sins… was buried… and was raised” (1 Cor 15:3–4), and the apostles expand that foundation the way you’re doing.
So yes, unity is built on the essential gospel, and your elaboration is a legitimate attempt to articulate what the NT assumes when it says “Jesus is Lord.”
If you claim to follow the apostolic creed —
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31),
“Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9),
“We preach Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor 4:5) —
Then on what authority do you add a world‑system grid that Scripture never attaches to the gospel itself?
The NT creed is a Person, not a framework; it is Christ crucified and risen (1 Cor 15:3–4), not a philosophical overlay.
So the question is simple: How do you reconcile confessing Jesus as Lord with imposing an interpretive system He never taught, the apostles never preached, and the gospel never requires?
If the creed is Christ, then the authority must be Christ; if the authority is Christ, then the interpretive system must come from Christ; and if the system does not come from Christ, it cannot be part of the creed.

I am glad we agree re the Creed/Gospel, which is why I am less concerned about our disagreement re tulip.
Now if we can just get Burn and legion on board.

 

[GWH]

Your six‑point creed is basically a long‑form exposition of the NT’s core call —
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31) and
“Confess Jesus as Lord” (Rom 10:9) — and every point you list is anchored in explicit biblical statements:
God’s character (Deut 6:4; John 3:16),
human sin (Rom 3:23),
Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (Rom 3:22–25; 1 Cor 15:1–4),
repentance and obedience flowing from faith (Luke 2:11; John 14:6),
the Spirit’s indwelling and sanctifying work (Rom 8:6–17),
and the continuity of OT and NT revelation (Matt 5:17; Heb 10:1–10).
The only caution Scripture itself presses is that the NT never presents salvation as accepting a creed but as trusting a Person — Christ crucified and risen — and everything else you list is the doctrinal content that flows from that trust.
Paul’s summary is deliberately simple: “I delivered to you as of first importance… that Christ died for our sins… was buried… and was raised” (1 Cor 15:3–4), and the apostles expand that foundation the way you’re doing.
So yes, unity is built on the essential gospel, and your elaboration is a legitimate attempt to articulate what the NT assumes when it says “Jesus is Lord.”
If you claim to follow the apostolic creed —
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31),
“Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9),
“We preach Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor 4:5) —
Then on what authority do you add a world‑system grid that Scripture never attaches to the gospel itself?
The NT creed is a Person, not a framework; it is Christ crucified and risen (1 Cor 15:3–4), not a philosophical overlay.
So the question is simple: How do you reconcile confessing Jesus as Lord with imposing an interpretive system He never taught, the apostles never preached, and the gospel never requires?
If the creed is Christ, then the authority must be Christ; if the authority is Christ, then the interpretive system must come from Christ; and if the system does not come from Christ, it cannot be part of the creed.

Yes, we should recognize that the long form of the creed begins simply in a form young children can understand, such as “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so” and develops or expands from there with deeper understanding (Eph. 3:16–19) as we mature spirituality (Eph. 4:11-17).