Theological Truth and Real Truth

[JohnDB]

What difference does it make what the motive is?
Some things we do because we have to and some things we do because we like to and some things we do because God asks us to and gives us the strength to.

If someone reads the bible and comes away believing God "doesn't need any help" and they go about their merry way....

And someone reads the same bible and comes away believing God wants them to do the work/good deeds of God in the Kingdom here on earth...then one of them did not understand what they read.

The O.P. is talking about truth...
There cannot be two truths or neither one of them is the truth.

What ultimately I was referring to was what is done with the truth if (pretend that's a very big "if") it happens to become presented to the "truth seeker" as well as the many ways that the truth is not discerned at all.

Nama'an was told the truth of how to cure his leprosy. And he was about to go off storming mad without his cure.
But if it weren't for his desperation AND his advisor....he wouldn't have gotten his cure. (Gehazi might have not gotten cursed for his intrusion into this situation due to his greed...but that's another story)

But Nama'an was going to discount everyone and everything that had told him the truth if left up to his own devices. IE slave girl, rumor mill, and this supposed holy man who couldn't even come out his door to meet such a wealthy and powerful man such as himself and had to use a messenger for short distances.

The truth is often (in the most difficult cases) a problem with the question itself. Not in the answer. Not always, but often enough that people focus on two answers instead of the validity of the question.

So,
"What type of cheese is the moon made of?"
Is an obvious leading question and arguing/deliberating about the "truth" of the answers given is pointless. But the real truth is that the question is faulty logic to start with.

Will someone who has been battling for blue cheese for all these years actually surrender to the truth that the question is faulty to begin with?

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

You say Jesus' words are reliable.
So do you mean that to find the source of truth we should use the bible...
Or do you mean that to find the source of truth we should consult Jesus?

I've heard some say that we should bring our thoughts to God directly and Ask Him, others say the same thing except to bring it to Jesus. But in the end they are talking about the same thing. To have direct access with the Holy Spirit, and to rely on Him. Let the Holy Spirit guide us directly. This reasoning I agree with partially, to come to Jesus directly. But there is one huge flaw in that answer. It's when I try to discern what is from God through the Holy Spirit, as opposed to what is from me from my own reasoning, my own desires, and my own fears. I know my own voice when in the mist of a sin says it's ok to do it.

And I've faught with a voice in me at least once when it said that I was worthless and not waste God's time in a prayer. Do you want to know how I fought that depressing thought that fed off of my fears. It was by remembering a bible verse that said to pray in all situations. Both for all things and to pray constantly.

It it therefore worth having the bible as the foundation for what is from God and what isn't. Not because God won't talk to us nowadays, but because we need to discern what is from God and what isn't.

Therefore yes, I say if you want to know the truth and to know Jesus then study the bible. After all Jesus said to the religous leaders of that time that the scriptures point to Him. If they really wanted to follow the scripture and follow the law, then they would have also accepted Jesus when He was with them. The bible is the foundation for me because I need discernment to know what is from Jesus, what is from God, versus what isn't.
_____________________
I've heard another view say to study theology, and read what many of the great men in the church have said about our faith, our walk, and our understanding. This indivual's reasoning was that if we say we are just reading the bible, then what that means is that we are going to view the bible though our own preconceived ideals, and walk away with the same ideas we started with. This person's point is on a horrible but often true observation that people make the bible say what they want it to say, choose some verses to listen to while ignoring others.

The flaw in this logic though is that by doing this, we are placing more value on man's understanding and man's interpation of our faith, then we do on what is actually from God. Though there is wisdom in listening to what others say and what others have said before. The bible actually says to go to God directly. Let no man say that he is "teacher" because we all have the same teacher (The Holy Spirit and God). There's also the observation that there are many theologies, and some are just not true at all. So from knowing the bible we can discern more what is false in man's wisdom and understanding.

Thus again the bible is the foundation. Not that God doesn't talk to us any more, nor that we should not listen to others and their understanding. But instead when listening to either let them be subject to the test of what's in scripture, and see if they are shown to be false by that foundation.

(Also just to stress the point that the bible points to Jesus. So studying the bible for it's own sake, not just as a foundation and standard to test other ideas to, is worth doing).

 

[Boaz]

So the ones who have the best discernment have the best versions of the truth?
or we need to discern the best discerners?

It seems to me, and I don't say this with an unkind spirit, that maybe your foundation is not very strong. SOME things that are disputed in the church are a matter of method of interpretation and Biblical conclusions reached because of this and don't affect salvation. An example of that would be the debate on free will or total depravity. Both parties believe the fundamental requirements for salvation. Jesus as Son of God, Son of Man, His diety and sacrificial atoneing death on the cross, His resurrection, the Trinity of God. They differ on how this salvation is applied to the individual, whether by our choice or God's choice. Which does not affect salvation either way. Both have the necessary saving faith.
Other things that cause divisions can potentially affect salvation. Some things that are taught from the pulpit are definitively wrong because they are not Biblical but are based on any number of things, one being wealth. Some things are absolutely made up, man made doctrines and it does take true spiritual DISCERMENT to recognize false teachings. Our discernment does not pop out of thin air. It comes from a familiarity withthe Bible a careful study of the whole of it with trusted, proven helps at times. The Holy Spirit illuminates the Word to us, giving us understanding if we are LISTENING to Him instead of our own minds or desires or what we want something to mean. We should be able to tell from what our mind knows and our gut tells us when something is wrong. Wrong. Not just call it wrong because we don't like it or because it is a matter of someone using a different lens through which they interpret, therefore reaching a different meaning than the one we have, when the opposing interpretation is arrived at through LEGITIMATE means.

 

[Boaz]

So the ones who have the best discernment have the best versions of the truth?
or we need to discern the best discerners?

YOU need to be discerning.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

PS
I did a lesson some years ago on Matthew 5 LET YOUR YES BE YES AND YOUR NO BE NO.

What does this mean to you?
It DOES have to do with taking an oath...

For now to me this changes the common practice of making promises. Don't try and strengthen your yes by saying I promise, or strengthen your yes by saying I swear by heaven. By God, or even by the earth. Not even to swear on your own life on a matter. It should be that your simple answer of yes or no is all tgat is required, instead of saying "I promise" meaning the other times you say something it's not reliable.

However there is one other thing I have been considering over the years and I don't have a strong conclusion concerning. Often we strengthen our commitments by making promises, making vows, even making legal contracts to sign so those promises are strengthened. Isn't this also included in what Jesus said to let your yes be yes and your no he no? Yet this is a strong foundation in society. My wedding is both my wife and I exchanging vows to each other, and signing a marriage license to show that we are nartied. Contracts and written signatures to show we agree to them is a bedrock in society that allows us to do many other things. I wouldn't have a house right now unless part of the final arrangements of buying it included several contracts being signed saying yo agree with this term and to agree on a payment program for the mortgage.

These kinds of contracts are everywhere in society. From the special moments like marriage, to the practical issues of getting a loan, or acknowledging a code of conduct work. By signing a piece of paper we are strengthing our yes's and our no's, kind of like making a promise or an oath instead of just saying yes or no. On that matter I don't know, and am conflicted. And I don't know how to walk away from those elements. It seems like everything waits on a signature before you can do anything nowadays.

 

[humble soul]

Im not saying anyone on this thread is wrong.Nor do I say my version of the truth is superior.
It just seems too simplistic to me that one denomination of Christianity will be proven one day, to be the 'winner".
"Humble you should have taken the OT more seriously."
is God really going to say that to me one day?

 

[Boaz]

I'll tell you this Humble Soul,,,,
If there is more than ONE TRUTH...
then we don't know the truth.

I like the passage where Pilate asks Jesus
WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
John 18:38

Pilate was staring right at the truth,,,,
So is Jesus the truth?

Then why would we need Paul or anybody else for that matter?
Why not just read the gospels and be done with it?

Or would we STILL have a problem?

I like to go to the Early Church Fathers when something is unclear to me. JLB calls these men. Are they mere men if they learned from the Apostles?

WHO do we trust?

Paul and the Apostles, appointed directly by Jesus to carry the authority He gave them, to set the foundations of His church. That is, it's doctrine and function. Those are the boundaries of Christianity, it's truth, And nothing more or less.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Im not saying anyone on this thread is wrong.Nor do I say my version of the truth is superior.
It just seems too simplistic to me that one denomination of Christianity will be proven one day, to be the 'winner".
"Humble you should have taken the OT more seriously."
is God really going to say that to me one day?

I doubt any denomination has it all completely correct. But on the things that matter, the things concerning being saved, most of them agree. And it's those details that matter, not which denomination you are part of or which school of theology you believe the most.

 

[humble soul]

I doubt any denomination has it all completely correct. But on the things that matter, the things concerning being saved, most of them agree. And it's those details tgat matter, not which denomination you are part of or which school of theology you believe the most.

But according to some, we Catholics are going to Hell ......... ??

 

[Boaz]

Im not saying anyone on this thread is wrong.Nor do I say my version of the truth is superior.
It just seems too simplistic to me that one denomination of Christianity will be proven one day, to be the 'winner".
"Humble you should have taken the OT more seriously."
is God really going to say that to me one day?

Silly question. Not even sure where it came from. I don't really concern myself with different denominations and certainly don't know what all/any of them teach. It just seems to me that you are suggesting that BECAUSE there are so many denominations and interpretations that we have nothing solid to stand on. Which would mean the Apostles failed in the objective Jesus appointed them to. Which was establishing the foundation(the content and doctrine and functioning of His church). We are required to do the work of learning what that is ourselves, individually. It is all there in black and white, it isn't complicated or hard to understand, and it is truth. Denominations usually come about over trivial differences, things that don't really matter to salvation itself. Don't need to sweat over the small stuff.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

But according to some, we Catholics are going to Hell ......... ??

If we hold to the same core truths and rely on Jesus, then I don't think it matters If we are Catholic, or protastant. What matters from there is that we are brothers and sisters in Jesus. God will be the judge of us from there, and we should try to be each others encourager and rebuked. So that we are strengthened by each other.

 

[Boaz]

But according to some, we Catholics are going to Hell ......... ??

Well I'm sure some people believe that but so what? Some might. We are all held the the same criteria, the same beliefs necessary for salvation, and only God knows both our hearts and our minds. Being a Catholic won't SAVE you either. What you believe about Christ is what makes the difference.

 

[for_his_glory]

John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Are we to believe everything that man teaches or should we be Spiritually discerning the truth or the error that comes out of their mouth as only the Holy Spirit can teach us either directly or working through those He has anointed to teach us.

The Bible should be front and the center as all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

From Genesis to Revelations all teachings are from God given to what He instructed the Prophets to write in the OT and what God gave Jesus to speak and teach in the NT, John 12:49, 50, as God's Holy Spirit reveals all wisdom and understanding to all of us that pray and hear the Spirit of God speaking to us.

 

[GodsGrace]

But according to some, we Catholics are going to Hell ......... ??

Not if they believe in Jesus and are depending on HIM.
Whether or not they know any theology....

 

[GodsGrace]

What ultimately I was referring to was what is done with the truth if (pretend that's a very big "if") it happens to become presented to the "truth seeker" as well as the many ways that the truth is not discerned at all.

Nama'an was told the truth of how to cure his leprosy. And he was about to go off storming mad without his cure.
But if it weren't for his desperation AND his advisor....he wouldn't have gotten his cure. (Gehazi might have not gotten cursed for his intrusion into this situation due to his greed...but that's another story)

But Nama'an was going to discount everyone and everything that had told him the truth if left up to his own devices. IE slave girl, rumor mill, and this supposed holy man who couldn't even come out his door to meet such a wealthy and powerful man such as himself and had to use a messenger for short distances.

The truth is often (in the most difficult cases) a problem with the question itself. Not in the answer. Not always, but often enough that people focus on two answers instead of the validity of the question.

So,
"What type of cheese is the moon made of?"
Is an obvious leading question and arguing/deliberating about the "truth" of the answers given is pointless. But the real truth is that the question is faulty logic to start with.

Will someone who has been battling for blue cheese for all these years actually surrender to the truth that the question is faulty to begin with?

I don't understand what you mean John.
The answer to the question WHAT IS THE MOON MADE OF?
is.......THE MOON IS NOT MADE OF CHEESE.

I concentrated on what the O.P. said here:

"Jesus Christ is the truth."
And of course I agree. But doesnt that set us up to become intolerant? Inflexible? Dogmatic? The search is over therefore game over?
Ok Im sounding like a seriously disturbed liberal i know. A radical relativist. A heretic.
Because I wont put Bible front and centre? The Bible is the Truth more than Jesus Christ is the truth?

humble soul is positing the fact that we can become intolerant when we think we have the truth. But someone MUST have the truth...and if someone else has a different truth...then we do NOT know what the truth is.

He is also asking if the bible is more the truth than Jesus is,,,which I'm discussing with Not_Now.Soon right now.

This is why we discuss things here....to see how the other person understands different doctrine.

 

[GodsGrace]

I've heard some say that we should bring our thoughts to God directly and Ask Him, others say the same thing except to bring it to Jesus. But in the end they are talking about the same thing. To have direct access with the Holy Spirit, and to rely on Him. Let the Holy Spirit guide us directly. This reasoning I agree with partially, to come to Jesus directly. But there is one huge flaw in that answer. It's when I try to discern what is from God through the Holy Spirit, as opposed to what is from me from my own reasoning, my own desires, and my own fears. I know my own voice when in the mist of a sin says it's ok to do it.

I agree that we are to speak to God. I learned everything I knew in the beginning just by trusting that Jesus loved me and wanted to do the best for me. This is all I needed.

God will speak to different persons in different ways and tell them different things in accordance with what they need at any given time.

We cannot, however, take what God tells us personally and bring it to the theology table...it may or may not match something in scriipture -- it may not be in scripture; sometimes we get these lucid moments that, unfortunately, then become lost forever. Small glimpses into a true understanding of some spiritual idea or fact.

But, yes, we do need the bible to discern that it is not our own voice telling us all is OK when in reality it is not.

And I've faught with a voice in me at least once when it said that I was worthless and not waste God's time in a prayer. Do you want to know how I fought that depressing thought that fed off of my fears. It was by remembering a bible verse that said to pray in all situations. Both for all things and to pray constantly.

It it therefore worth having the bible as the foundation for what is from God and what isn't. Not because God won't talk to us nowadays, but because we need to discern what is from God and what isn't.

Therefore yes, I say if you want to know the truth and to know Jesus then study the bible. After all Jesus said to the religous leaders of that time that the scriptures point to Him. If they really wanted to follow the scripture and follow the law, then they would have also accepted Jesus when He was with them. The bible is the foundation for me because I need discernment to know what is from Jesus, what is from God, versus what isn't.

The thought just came to me that if I had never studied the bible, I'd be working like crazy to get to heaven and feeling like a sinner all day long. It's through scripture that I can know that I sin but God does not abandon me for this but forgives happily if I'm sorry for that sin.
_____________________

I've heard another view say to study theology, and read what many of the great men in the church have said about our faith, our walk, and our understanding. This indivual's reasoning was that if we say we are just reading the bible, then what that means is that we are going to view the bible though our own preconceived ideals, and walk away with the same ideas we started with. This person's point is on a horrible but often true observation that people make the bible say what they want it to say, choose some verses to listen to while ignoring others.

I think we should get to know Jesus first.
See what HE has to tell us.
Then I also like to hear what others have to say...this does not mean it has to be accepted. However, it's not wrong to read what those that know more than us have to say. We can always learn even in a worldly way.

In fact, I'd say that if we plan on witnessing...we better know some biblical doctrine and be ready to answer questions. Be prepared to know our faith and explain it.

The flaw in this logic though is that by doing this, we are placing more value on man's understanding and man's interpation of our faith, then we do on what is actually from God. Though there is wisdom in listening to what others say and what others have said before. The bible actually says to go to God directly. Let no man say that he is "teacher" because we all have the same teacher (The Holy Spirit and God). There's also the observation that there are many theologies, and some are just not true at all. So from knowing the bible we can discern more what is false in man's wisdom and understanding.

Agreed. I think i said this.

Thus again the bible is the foundation. Not that God doesn't talk to us any more, nor that we should not listen to others and their understanding. But instead when listening to either let them be subject to the test of what's in scripture, and see if they are shown to be false by that foundation.

(Also just to stress the point that the bible points to Jesus. So studying the bible for it's own sake, not just as a foundation and standard to test other ideas to, is worth doing).

Agreed again.
But, natrually, we do use the bible to test other ideas.
But this should not be the main reason for reading it.

 

[GodsGrace]

For now to me this changes the common practice of making promises. Don't try and strengthen your yes by saying I promise, or strengthen your yes by saying I swear by heaven. By God, or even by the earth. Not even to swear on your own life on a matter. It should be that your simple answer of yes or no is all tgat is required, instead of saying "I promise" meaning the other times you say something it's not reliable.

This is exactly right.
We should be so honorable that our YES should be sufficient.
Jesus was referring to the 3rd commandment...DO NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD IN VAIN. Those societies believed that breaking an oath carried with it a curse. Pharisees would make eloquent oaths and then break them....Jesus called them hypocrites because He knew they never meant to keep them, so not only was their word of no value...but not even their oath.

When God makes an oath, He keeps it....Abraham and his blessings and promises.
Men may not be able to keep an oath...so it becomes worthless.
They do this only to convince the other person.

Jesus wanted us to be so honest that an oath would not be necessary...but it would also require keeping the promise.
Our word should be our oath.
Our yes should be yes
Our no should be no

However there is one other thing I have been considering over the years and I don't have a strong conclusion concerning. Often we strengthen our commitments by making promises, making vows, even making legal contracts to sign so those promises are strengthened. Isn't this also included in what Jesus said to let your yes be yes and your no he no? Yet this is a strong foundation in society. My wedding is both my wife and I exchanging vows to each other, and signing a marriage license to show that we are nartied. Contracts and written signatures to show we agree to them is a bedrock in society that allows us to do many other things. I wouldn't have a house right now unless part of the final arrangements of buying it included several contracts being signed saying yo agree with this term and to agree on a payment program for the mortgage.

These kinds of contracts are everywhere in society. From the special moments like marriage, to the practical issues of getting a loan, or acknowledging a code of conduct work. By signing a piece of paper we are strengthing our yes's and our no's, kind of like making a promise or an oath instead of just saying yes or no. On that matter I don't know, and am conflicted. And I don't know how to walk away from those elements. It seems like everything waits on a signature before you can do anything nowadays.

Sure. Not everyone is Christian....Not everyone belongs to the Kingdom of God (on earth). This is necessary because people DO NOT keep their word and so contracts are necessary. No need to dwell on this...it's the world we live in...it's OK. But if you know someone PERSONALLY, it's good to always keep your word. My jeweler gives me stuff even if I don't have the money at the time...he knows I'll go back to pay him. And other such stories.
But for companies and those that do not know us and for BIG ITEM things...contracts are necessary. It's important that we keep the terms of the contract...this will also prove the integrity of our word.

Also, quickly...a promise is different from an oath.
A promise is between two persons...
An oath involves God.

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul and the Apostles, appointed directly by Jesus to carry the authority He gave them, to set the foundations of His church. That is, it's doctrine and function. Those are the boundaries of Christianity, it's truth, And nothing more or less.

But we don't agree on what Paul taught.
We don't agree on what Jesus taught.
This has always bothered me.

 

[Boaz]

But we don't agree on what Paul taught.
We don't agree on what Jesus taught.
This has always bothered me.

We don't disagree on everything they taught. But it is true that the doctrine (teaching) is not this and that, each has only ONE meaning and the meaning is what THEY meant. The fact there are different interpretations of what they said, does not change that. To ascertain their true intent can be in some cases, a very daunting and exhaustive task. Frankly in this day and age very few have either the ability, the tools, the brains, the time or the inclination or the know how to do this. That would include me. This is where we rely on sources, both contemporary (though this is a needle in a haystack to find unbiased sources in our world) and in history, who have done this work. People who are historically been proven and trusted.
Another thing that often helps me is to read the Bible, or try to, as though it is the first time ever, and without outside influence, including my own mind, on what it is saying. The Epistles are best read, each book, in a single sitting, like you would read a letter, because that is what it is. Book prefaces should be read so we begin the book knowing the circumstances behind it. That way we begin the journey through the book from the right perspective and in its proper context. We should read notes included in the chapters and even check all included references given, so we connect it properly with other parts of the Bible. The Bible really shouldn't be interpreted by isolated scriptures, but by the whole of the Bible, never pitting one passage against another, therein producing an APPARENT contradiction because we know there can be no contradictions in God's word.

 

[GodsGrace]

We don't disagree on everything they taught. But it is true that the doctrine (teaching) is not this and that, each has only ONE meaning and the meaning is what THEY meant. The fact there are different interpretations of what they said, does not change that. To ascertain their true intent can be in some cases, a very daunting and exhaustive task. Frankly in this day and age very few have either the ability, the tools, the brains, the time or the inclination or the know how to do this. That would include me. This is where we rely on sources, both contemporary (though this is a needle in a haystack to find unbiased sources in our world) and in history, who have done this work. People who are historically been proven and trusted.
Another thing that often helps me is to read the Bible, or try to, as though it is the first time ever, and without outside influence, including my own mind, on what it is saying. The Epistles are best read, each book, in a single sitting, like you would read a letter, because that is what it is. Book prefaces should be read so we begin the book knowing the circumstances behind it. That way we begin the journey through the book from the right perspective and in its proper context. We should read notes included in the chapters and even check all included references given, so we connect it properly with other parts of the Bible. The Bible really shouldn't be interpreted by isolated scriptures, but by the whole of the Bible, never pitting one passage against another, therein producing an APPARENT contradiction because we know there can be no contradictions in God's word.

I agree.
The problem is that there are certain verses that make particular doctrine sound correct but which do not reconcile with other scripture. You say there cannot be contradictions in scripture...if there were no contradictions, we would all agree on everything.

Jesus gave the Apostles authority to confess sins. He said that THEY had the choice to forgive the sin or not.

Should we be confessing our sins to an elder? To a priest? To a pastor? Did Jesus REALLY mean to confess to God? Then why give the authority to the Apostles?

And other such questions.
To which I am not really asking for a reply.