The place of truth

[jasonc]

Your right the bible has points where it uses logic, and it has other points that it doesn't. Many of the laws given are given without an explaination except at the end of that law God says "I am the LORD." Therefore I count logic when part of the bible to be by the standard of the bible. And thus it's at a higher standard then logic in general.

Would you count logic to be the higher standard, and say instead of the logic being higher because it was in scripture, but say that scripture is more trustworthy because it holds sound logic?

When logical rationelle and scripture overlap, would you count it as good more so because of the logic or because of it being in the bible?

There's a tendency of christians to be antiillectual,and assume that it must always be felt, expercienced rather then a balenced of reason with experience. Ie head knowledge versus heart knowledge.the later isn't even in the bible.our mind contains it all.emotions are of course what the heart is referred to,but it's still the intellect that controls the emotion. Truth is there ,to wit all that is revealed. GOD hasn't shown all of Himself. We also have bias and truth must be allowed to overcome that

 

[chessman]

In my experience, it is most reasonable to find the greatest place of truth written within the traditional Scriptures of the revealed Word of God (both old and new testimonies).


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

 

[Barbarian]

The issue I see often in these threads is that scientific reasurch is quoted and scripture is bypassed, ignored, or rationalized away to be nothing of what it says. It basically says that scientific reasurch that is here today and changes tomorrow is a greater authority then the bible. I don't mean to say that our understand of scripture is spot on (see theology and Apologitics threads for scripture verses logic butt heads often) but when scientific reasurch and scripture have the occasion to butt heads, we should hold scripture as the authority. Or we should not say we hold the bible as an authority compaired to scientific understanding.

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. It's not a science text. So we shouldn't expect it to be able to tell us about how new species appear over time. That's not what it's for.

That said you and Eugene are right. When it is not concerning salvation we shouldn't split ourselves up about these issues.

Of course.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

There's a tendency of christians to be antiillectual,and assume that it must always be felt, expercienced rather then a balenced of reason with experience. Ie head knowledge versus heart knowledge.the later isn't even in the bible.our mind contains it all.emotions are of course what the heart is referred to,but it's still the intellect that controls the emotion. Truth is there ,to wit all that is revealed. GOD hasn't shown all of Himself. We also have bias and truth must be allowed to overcome that

I would count heart knowledge as different then experience. But yeah I agree that our intelligence and our feelings should balance eachother out. Be on fairly even ground. But that said, I do count experience as different then our heart. Our heart can be deceptive and we feel something from our wants or our fears, from our hopes or our worries. Some say they know the HolySpirit, and can feel Him leading them. I have no doubt this exists, and for those who say it happens to them I hope it is true. But that said I would count experience as something different. Jesus put it in a way that if the people could not believe because of what Jesus said, then to believe because of what Jesus did. And in fact Jesus's signs and miracles are a testiment from God that gives Jesus support and to believe in Him. Simularily Peter had an experience in Acts from a vision (or dream?) that lead Him to accept traveling with Gentiles. Then while preaching to the Gentiles once they arrived, Peter witnessed the Holy Spirit be placed on them by their talking in tongues like the apstoles had on Pentecost. Peter saw fit to babitized them and this experience showed both Peter and the new Christian community that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Peter's experience was a witness to a controversery concerning Jew and Gentile Christians.

I have seen people who say they feel something so it must be true but later we find it that it isn't. And I have seen people think hard to tell what is true, but later find out they also were not right. Something was missing that they did not know, or perhaps they never find out why things didn't turn out the way they thought they would. Either way experience showed them they were wrong.

That all said, I don't mean to say that logic and understanding are of no merrit. Only that when we are corrected by a greater source of authority that we re examine and accept the correction. I say this not just for the benifit of logic and rationelle, but also for our experiences as well. I hold the things from God to be a higher authority then our experiences or our understanding. Therefore though we can discern what's true and untrue to a great amount by our understanding, and that can be corrected or supported by our experiences; I still hold that things from God by the Holy Spirit, or by the bible to be an authority to correct us.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. It's not a science text. So we shouldn't expect it to be able to tell us about how new species appear over time. That's not what it's for.

Barbarian, this comment shows your hand. I want you to look at it so your not deceived by yourself. In the poll you answered both bible and scientific reasurch to be at a tie for finding the truth. But this comment shows that if there is a conflict between the two you give scientific reasurch the greater authority over the Bible. If this is how you see it so be it. But don't be deceived to think your on the fence between science and scripture, holding them both as equal and balancing their truths with understanding. When looking at both scripture and science it seems you value both, but that you also favor scientific thought more. This is an observation of mine. It is also where you and others bump heads in the threads.

Scientific explainations are not the scope or the focus of the bible, no. So yes your correct on that aspect. But where your wrong is to take that aspect to say that the bible does not have an authority on those elements when it speaks about them. In the same way that the bible is not purely a history book, it still gives a great amount of history. Therefore in historical matters as well as scientific matters, when the bible says something it is the authority to agree with.

Where salvation is concered though I don't think evolution/creationism or Young Earth/Old Earth is what matters.

On the aspect of worshiping in truth, and holding the truth as valuable though, those controversies do come up to play. If they didn't then neither you nor the others would post passionately about these matters.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

In my experience, it is most reasonable to find the greatest place of truth written within the traditional Scriptures of the revealed Word of God (both old and new testimonies).


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

I agree. The only thing more reliable is to know something from God Himself. The issue with that though is knowing it's from God or not, so even then I hold the bible as an authority, to correct and test what we think we have by God.

Thankyou for the link. Very simular conclusion to what I've found, and puts tradition in there as well. Thank you.

 

[Papa Zoom]

While you're right Papa Zoom, that would head this thread in the wrong direction, it is one of the main reasons I made this post. There has been quite a bit of repeated bickering and talking past eachother over scientific precepts verses religous precepts. My hope was originally to talk about where we place the truth when considering multiple sources. As was pointed out earlier though this might not have been a good idea. Like poking a bear instead of letting it settle and hibernate.

The problem, as I see it, isn't between science and religion as much as it is in the interpretations of science and the understanding of Scripture. Misunderstandings lead to conflict.

 

[Papa Zoom]

There's a tendency of christians to be antiillectual,and assume that it must always be felt, expercienced rather then a balenced of reason with experience. Ie head knowledge versus heart knowledge.the later isn't even in the bible.our mind contains it all.emotions are of course what the heart is referred to,but it's still the intellect that controls the emotion. Truth is there ,to wit all that is revealed. GOD hasn't shown all of Himself. We also have bias and truth must be allowed to overcome that

Spot on!

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

The problem, as I see it, isn't between science and religion as much as it is in the interpretations of science and the understanding of Scripture. Misunderstandings lead to conflict.

Hmm. Well the problem then lies in our understanding right?

Science can correct itself in the way that an observation can rebuke a previous conclusion. Likewise religion can correct itself in that scripture can rebuke false doctrine. But where the two meet? Can scientific understanding rebuke the bible? Can the bible rebuke scientific observation?

Where the rubber meets the road is that science is still based on our understanding. Scripture isn't.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, this comment shows your hand. I want you to look at it so your not deceived by yourself. In the poll you answered both bible and scientific reasurch to be at a tie for finding the truth. But this comment shows that if there is a conflict between the two you give scientific reasurch the greater authority over the Bible.

No. For example, it's clear enough from the Bible that we are descended from two people. We know it's difficult to maintain a population from a single pair over time. Usually, if a species declines to a few hundred individuals, it's doomed. But not always. So if one took science above scripture, one would doubt the actual existence of two people as founders.

But that wasn't my point. My point is scripture rarely makes scientific claims; Genesis, as I said, isn't about how any of the biology went down. It's about God and His creation with regard to man and our relationship.

But don't be deceived to think your on the fence between science and scripture, holding them both as equal and balancing their truths with understanding.

If you accept scripture as it is, there is no "fence." This is a whole, with no conflicts, because Genesis isn't even talking about the mechanics of creation. This is why we have difficulty. You see it as some kind of dichotomy, when it is nothing of the kind. As Pope John Paul II remarked about the issue, truth cannot contradict truth. But as St. Augustine wrote, we can be wrong about anything, and if we believe something that later is clearly refuted by evidence, we should be humble enough to acknowledge our imperfection and learn from it.

Once you get that, the "fence" goes away. God is truth. Christians should never fear the truth.

 

[jasonc]

I would count heart knowledge as different then experience. But yeah I agree that our intelligence and our feelings should balance eachother out. Be on fairly even ground. But that said, I do count experience as different then our heart. Our heart can be deceptive and we feel something from our wants or our fears, from our hopes or our worries. Some say they know the HolySpirit, and can feel Him leading them. I have no doubt this exists, and for those who say it happens to them I hope it is true. But that said I would count experience as something different. Jesus put it in a way that if the people could not believe because of what Jesus said, then to believe because of what Jesus did. And in fact Jesus's signs and miracles are a testiment from God that gives Jesus support and to believe in Him. Simularily Peter had an experience in Acts from a vision (or dream?) that lead Him to accept traveling with Gentiles. Then while preaching to the Gentiles once they arrived, Peter witnessed the Holy Spirit be placed on them by their talking in tongues like the apstoles had on Pentecost. Peter saw fit to babitized them and this experience showed both Peter and the new Christian community that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Peter's experience was a witness to a controversery concerning Jew and Gentile Christians.

I have seen people who say they feel something so it must be true but later we find it that it isn't. And I have seen people think hard to tell what is true, but later find out they also were not right. Something was missing that they did not know, or perhaps they never find out why things didn't turn out the way they thought they would. Either way experience showed them they were wrong.

That all said, I don't mean to say that logic and understanding are of no merrit. Only that when we are corrected by a greater source of authority that we re examine and accept the correction. I say this not just for the benifit of logic and rationelle, but also for our experiences as well. I hold the things from God to be a higher authority then our experiences or our understanding. Therefore though we can discern what's true and untrue to a great amount by our understanding, and that can be corrected or supported by our experiences; I still hold that things from God by the Holy Spirit, or by the bible to be an authority to correct us.

What is Greek word for the seat of emotions and the Hebrew word.where do these really exist?

Our mind is what is doing that, thus why our bible says to renew it and naught to do with the heart.which if our thoughts are pure so shall our Heart follow.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Hmm. Well the problem then lies in our understanding right?

Science can correct itself in the way that an observation can rebuke a previous conclusion. Likewise religion can correct itself in that scripture can rebuke false doctrine. But where the two meet? Can scientific understanding rebuke the bible? Can the bible rebuke scientific observation?

Where the rubber meets the road is that science is still based on our understanding. Scripture isn't.

Science is investigation and best guesses based on data collected. Scripture is based in Truth but it's our understanding that is based on investigation (reading the Bible - asking questions - seeking clarification) and in the end, we believe what we find most convincing. The problem in understanding Scripture (the way it was meant to be understood by God) is us. I hear people often say, "The Bible says....." but I say no. The Bible doesn't say anything. We read it, and infer meaning from the text. Some things are clearer than others but not everything we read can be understood without study.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

No. For example, it's clear enough from the Bible that we are descended from two people. We know it's difficult to maintain a population from a single pair over time. Usually, if a species declines to a few hundred individuals, it's doomed. But not always. So if one took science above scripture, one would doubt the actual existence of two people as founders.

But that wasn't my point. My point is scripture rarely makes scientific claims; Genesis, as I said, isn't about how any of the biology went down. It's about God and His creation with regard to man and our relationship.



If you accept scripture as it is, there is no "fence." This is a whole, with no conflicts, because Genesis isn't even talking about the mechanics of creation. This is why we have difficulty. You see it as some kind of dichotomy, when it is nothing of the kind. As Pope John Paul II remarked about the issue, truth cannot contradict truth. But as St. Augustine wrote, we can be wrong about anything, and if we believe something that later is clearly refuted by evidence, we should be humble enough to acknowledge our imperfection and learn from it.

Once you get that, the "fence" goes away. God is truth. Christians should never fear the truth.

The problem is that there is a fence. There are sides. And determining which side is true, or if we can know which (if either) is true. Science has sides within itself. I'm not as knowledgeable in the scientific comminity to know the specifics of these, but I know they are there. Differing models of the universe. Differing models of physics. Sometimes the controversy lasts instead of one dide winnng the battle due to experimentation and observation. Like Neutionian theory and Einstein theory of time and gravity.

In Christianity there are sides too. Trinity verses nontrinity, salvation lost verses salvation secured, even how one is babitized, has the Holy Spirit, or if homosexuals can get married.

There are sides to be said where both sides can't be correct. And when it cones down to it on each issue. Even if some one wabers they either evemtually choose not to take part in the debates. Or they choose a point on obe side or the other.

If you do not think science and religion are on different sides of the fence, that's great. But I disagree. There are times when science and scripture are at odds with eachother, and on those times I'm inclined to not be enlightened with scripture to make it fit our understanding. But instead hope that maybe someday science will catch up. Either way my stand point is that scripture is the authority.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

What is Greek word for the seat of emotions and the Hebrew word.where do these really exist?

Our mind is what is doing that, thus why our bible says to renew it and naught to do with the heart.which if our thoughts are pure so shall our Heart follow.

Science is investigation and best guesses based on data collected. Scripture is based in Truth but it's our understanding that is based on investigation (reading the Bible - asking questions - seeking clarification) and in the end, we believe what we find most convincing. The problem in understanding Scripture (the way it was meant to be understood by God) is us. I hear people often say, "The Bible says....." but I say no. The Bible doesn't say anything. We read it, and infer meaning from the text. Some things are clearer than others but not everything we read can be understood without study.

I get your guys' points that it's our understanding our interpetation and our biases that get in the way of things. And to that point I agree. But I don't think you understand my point. When our understanding is corrected by scripture, even if we don't form a stable understanding afterwards we should still accept the scripture for what it says.

My biggest example with this is struggling with homosexuality, and accepting them or not. My understanding (based on many people around me) has been that homosexuality is not a choice. My understanding (based on my experiences as a man attracted to women) is that the sexual drive is unnervingly strong, and to tell a homosexual that their choices are wrong is hyporcritical because I'm too caught up in my own sexual drive and it's ok for me to date and marry (there's an outlet for me). My understanding from the bible is that men are not to lie with other men, nor women with women in that kind of way. There is more then one verse that brings up this point. I've had to change my thinking because the bible is the authority not me, not my understanding. Much growth has come from trying to make peace with that truth, but so far what I can say is that scripture must be the standard. (I mean this as an example of the bible saying something. I don't mean to argue over this point of homosexuallity. So please no one start down that direction.)

There are points people make where they say "the bible says this..." or "the bible doesn't agree..." In those instances looking into what they are saying, whether it hold bibilical merrit or not is the required action. If it holds neeut, great we can learn. If not, ok then that person is wrong.
I figure these are largely matters of our understanding (unless influenced by the Holy Spirit which is how I can trust the bible in the first place. I trust God penned it through other people). If our understanding is in error, then our understanfing is in error. The bible is still the bedrock to be the foundation anyways.

 

[Barbarian]

The problem is that there is a fence.

Only if we humans erect one. God didn't put one there.

There are sides. And determining which side is true, or if we can know which (if either) is true. Science has sides within itself. I'm not as knowledgeable in the scientific comminity to know the specifics of these, but I know they are there. Differing models of the universe. Differing models of physics. Sometimes the controversy lasts instead of one dide winnng the battle due to experimentation and observation. Like Neutionian theory and Einstein theory of time and gravity.

Newton's theory of gravitation is still used by NASA to get around the solar system. Occasionally, Einstein's modification is necessary, but not that often.

If you do not think science and religion are on different sides of the fence, that's great.

If you know both well, you won't see a fence. A lot of people think science is apart, but it's not. I don't quite buy Gould's idea of non-overlapping magesteria.

But I disagree. There are times when science and scripture are at odds with eachother,

If you think so, you've misunderstood one or both.

 

[for_his_glory]

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

The whole problem is how man/woman allows themselves to interpret scripture to fit their own understanding or maybe a better way to put it is to pick and choose scripture that fits their carnal knowledge.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

The whole problem is how man/woman allows themselves to interpret scripture to fit their own understanding or maybe a better way to put it is to pick and choose scripture that fits their carnal knowledge.

In the poll, For_His_Glory, you marked that the Holy Spirit, or direct contact with God is your greatest measure of the truth. Can you expand on that?

As for what you said above. It's good to be strengthened by grace, and it's true that too often our knowledge of the bible is picked out to fit certian marked beliefs. I've seen this in others so it must be true for myself and everyone else.

However, what other choice is there? To rely on the Holy Spirit? I hope there are many with the knowledge of what the Holy Spirit is giving them. I personally don't know the Holy Spirit from myself. So I rely on prayer and the bible.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Only if we humans erect one. God didn't put one there.



Newton's theory of gravitation is still used by NASA to get around the solar system. Occasionally, Einstein's modification is necessary, but not that often.



If you know both well, you won't see a fence. A lot of people think science is apart, but it's not. I don't quite buy Gould's idea of non-overlapping magesteria.



If you think so, you've misunderstood one or both.

The issue I have with this logic is how you've applied it, Barbarbian. Science is good to explain things. And over time it gets better at both being right and digging up new stuff to correct or support what it's already found. The issue is that it still has no authority to interpert the bible. The Holy Spirit has that authority, and the bible will be able to agree with the Holy Spirit too. But scientific inquiries into scripture have so far only added context to it, not change the meaning of it.

The way you've applied the logic in other threads is the opposite way. That Scripture adds context to scientific understandings but has no authority to correct it. Though it's not the focus of the bible to focus on how everything works or how the world has come to this point; the times when it does give an explaination it should be listened to and accepted as from the highest authority.

 

[Barbarian]

The issue I have with this logic is how you've applied it, Barbarbian. Science is good to explain things. And over time it gets better at both being right and digging up new stuff to correct or support what it's already found. The issue is that it still has no authority to interpert the bible. The Holy Spirit has that authority, and the bible will be able to agree with the Holy Spirit too. But scientific inquiries into scripture have so far only added context to it, not change the meaning of it.

It's always that way. As St. Augustine wrote, we can make mistakes about scripture, and when we find that our beliefs do not correspond to reality, we should be willing to revise them.

The way you've applied the logic in other threads is the opposite way. That Scripture adds context to scientific understandings but has no authority to correct it.

Using scripture to revise science would be trying to add something God never intended for it. It's meant to be about God and man and our relationship. It's not an idol to be worshiped.

 

[for_his_glory]

In the poll, For_His_Glory, you marked that the Holy Spirit, or direct contact with God is your greatest measure of the truth. Can you expand on that?

As for what you said above. It's good to be strengthened by grace, and it's true that too often our knowledge of the bible is picked out to fit certain marked beliefs. I've seen this in others so it must be true for myself and everyone else.

However, what other choice is there? To rely on the Holy Spirit? I hope there are many with the knowledge of what the Holy Spirit is giving them. I personally don't know the Holy Spirit from myself. So I rely on prayer and the bible.

First off the Holy Spirit is the very Spirit of God as Gods Spirit (Holy Spirit) dwells in us when we first received Jesus as our Lord and Savior even though we do not realize it at first. It's like us having a personal relationship with Jesus we also have that personal relationship with the Holy Spirit who will speak to us in various ways, but mainly through the word of God as it's all Gods Spirit.

The Holy Spirit will teach you things the carnal mind cannot perceive. Jesus explains the purpose of the Holy Spirit and the relationship of the believers to Christ and what relationship the believers have to the world in John chapters 14 and 15. The way I study is that I pray first and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to me what I need to learn. Then I read a verse at a time until I understand what that verse is saying. Sometimes I am on the same verse or even one word for a while until the Holy Spirit reveals truth of what I am reading. Then I move on to the next verse until I have read the whole chapter then this allows me the knowledge and understanding God wants me to learn. I use to read a chapter at a time and get the jest of it, but now realized how much knowledge it actually contained in all truth. I also compare scripture with scripture, OT with NT mixed with history of that era. When I hear others trying to teach me I test the spirits that are speaking so I know I am receiving truth or error, 1John 4:1-6. The spirit of Jezebel loves to speak falsehoods from the altar and runs rampant in many churches, Rev 2:18-29. I hear the voice of the Holy Spirit in my mind teaching me and it's hard to explain that to others as all I can tell them is when the Holy Spirit speaks you just know that it is Gods Spirit.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Find a quiet place where you can be alone for awhile to pray and ask God to fill you with His Holy Spirit and then you will know and feel His Spirit that will lead you to all truths.