Featured Spiritual Truth and Doctrine

Are you honestly saying there are no examples of people in Scripture insulting someone else?

 

Yes, it is. Anything else is superstitious, quasi-gnostic charismania.

Hogwash.

A Person saves. The only thing the words in Scripture can do, is lead us to that Person.

 

You cannot make a case.

You appeal to "universally accepted teachers" and "universally accepted commentaries" that don't exist.

Now you appeal to an "I've got seniority" defense that yo think will excuse you from answering the points made.

What teacher is universally accepted? Which commentary?

Seems to me that rejecting the OP because you feel it alludes to a grandiose superiority over others isn't something you can do.

It appeals to Scripture and the enlightening of the Holy Ghost, yet you are appealing to teachers of men and commentaries.

I don't know, just seems a little weak. I would think you would defend that which you present to offend.


God bless.

 

What I said is pretty clear:

Would you please show me where Scripture tells us that we are to insult people?


God bless.

 

Trying to pit "spiritual truth" against "doctrine" is in and of itself suspect.

 

Scripture tells us to speak the truth in season and out. It tells us to reprove a brother in sin.

 

Again, Paul is not just saying...

What exactly do you think this...


1 Corinthians 2:7-10 King James Version

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.


...means?

That they just used inspired speech?

There's more there than that, to be sure.

And this is what I think the OP is trying to convey.

Here is what you are calling hogwash:

According to the Bible, we are saved by the words of the Bible:


Acts 11:13-18 King James Version

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


In this passage we see it is the very Gospel of Jesus Christ that God uses, through Peter, to save Cornelius. In Acts 10 we see Peter preach the Gospel and he (Cornelius) is Baptized with the Holy Ghost as a result. Meaning he (Cornelius) received the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5) just as they (the disciples at Pentecost) did.

I mention this, not because I am in complete disagreement with what you have been saying, but to point out that Revelation has always been progressive, and the spiritual things of God have been progressively revealed to the saints of God. This is, in my view, also true in the Body of Christ in this Age: there are those among the Body who are infantile in their understanding and those who are eating meat.


You really think this...


14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

... is hogwash?

You are arguing with an extreme that excludes other relevant aspects demanded to properly conclude.

Yes, it is Jesus Christ Himself that saves.

But that doesn't deny that we are saved by the Cross, as well as saved by His Resurrection, as well as saved by the Word of God:


1 Peter 1:22-23 King James Version

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


You cannot be saved apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not in this lifetime.


God bless.

 

...stacking marbles...

 

And it never once tells us to insult others.

If so, I would like to see the Scripture on that.

We preach the Gospel, correct, exhort, and that is going to offend, but I need to see where I have been commanded by God and His Word to insult people.


God bless.

 

I didn't see it as pitting spiritual truth against doctrine, simply pointing out that there is a difference.

The Hebrew people had the Doctrine of Christ, but they did not understand what we would call "spiritual truth" in regards to the Gospel. For this reason the Writer calls on them to "go on" (progress) from the first principles of the Doctrine of Christ (Hebrews 6:1).

This in itself illustrates the difference in one having doctrine and understanding that Doctrine as God is giving it.

And I would just add that we come to understanding by the Spirit that was sent. Divine revelation of truth as opposed to intellectual effort. This is how the disciples could know that Jesus was the Christ (the prophesied Messiah) and the Son of God (Matthew 12-18), but not understand the Gospel (Matthew 16:20-23).


God bless.

 

Er, I'm running out of marbles here ...

Haven't lost them yet, though ...




God bless.

 

there isn't a difference and its absurd to insist there is. Anyone can misunderstand doctrine and hold to the wrong doctrine but true doctrine is spiritual truth. At best is is an awkward and sloppy way to put it. Most likely though it reveals a complete misunderstanding of what spiritual truth is.

 

And you would be wrong.

You are correct. You are slaughtering a pig on the altar. The words of the Bible lead us to the Person Who saves. Salvation is an act of God. First ears must be given to hear the words, and then one must be drawn.

Jesus is the Truth. The Bible is the truth about the Truth. And preaching is the truth about the truth about the Truth.

But ultimately, it is the Word that saves. Not the words about the Word.

Oh, that is very true. Because God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. But again, without ears to hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches, the words, inspired or not, are mere noise.

It is a Person that saves. Not a doctrine.

Cast down your idol and burn it.

 

Appeals to reject so-called "tradition" for the so-called "Bible only" (Note, I'm not speaking of sola scriptura, which is an altogether different premise) is the hallmark of charismania and cultism. It is cited to lend credence to their perversions of the texts, and not the true meanings, which you confess, are hidden from them that perish.

Preachers and teachers are gifts to the church. They are needed. And it pleased God to make it so. But the truth does not change. There is no 'fresh' revelation. In other words, you cannot appeal to the apostate notion of 'progressive revelation' to argue that we in this age, know the truth better than the Apostles.

They sit on Twelve Thrones, and they rule the Elect. There is nothing...NOTHING...that lends nuance or a more 'intimate knowledge' to the Gospel they preached.

That's what 'sola scriptura' means. And the gifts of God are without repentance. That means that the benefit of the teachers of 500 years ago, or 200 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, are realized today, and NOT, as Jon attempted to assert, only for their time while they were living.

Now you've come into this of late. You don't want to do your homework, and you presume to lecture me?

Yeah, go stack marbles.

 

So all doctrine is spiritual truth?


God bless.

 

This is in response to this:

Darrell C said: ↑

That they just used inspired speech?

There's more there than that, to be sure.

And this is what I think the OP is trying to convey.

The fact that they used inspired speech is just one of the issues. It is pretty obvious from the collective Scripture that despite inspired speech there was a rejection of what was said. That is a second issue brought out. What the intent of the inspired speech was to convey is also expounded upon, that is a third.

I can stop there and ask why you think this is "just using inspired speech?"


God bless.

 

Sigh please reread what I posted

 

Again, go by the example of Scripture. You ever read Matthew 12:34?

 

I'm not trying to offend here, but I want to point out what you are saying:

The words of the Bible lead us to the Person Who saves.

Now how is it that you are denying that the Word of God saves exactly?

And it took words for you to present that truth.

Right?

Where did you find out about that?

And see how all of them work together?

So one question: We know that the WORD can save without using the Word, but dies He?


God bless.