Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire teachers

I want to get this right :

Until God was made manifest in the flesh as Jesus , The meek would not inherit the earth , the peacemakers were not blessed, etc etc .

I think that is what your post implies. Is that what you believe ?

I'm not answering for RickyD. He is fully capable to answer for himself, but honestly - when have the meek ever INHERITED the earth - as an inheritance? That portion of scripture seems to me to be clearly prophetic - future application.

I believe that God speaks things into existance. That is His method of accomplishing His will. What He speaks becomes truth. Jesus demonstrated this for us to follow. So it was not the existance of Jesus that created these truths but His words.

"Let God be true and every man a liar" tells me that truth is His sole domain, and no man has the ability to add to it.

The debate seems to come down to this:

Gene says [ I know I got this part right ] : Apart from God there is no truth.

You say [ condensing it down ] : Apart from God - as revealed in the words of the KJV bible only , led by the Spirit's interpretation , there is no truth .

Did I state your position as clearly as mine ? If not ,please edit.

I reckon it depends on proper interpretation of the key words but it suits me this way :

Humility is the key to getting along well in this life.

Having a more than my share portion of ego as opposed to humility, I see all sorts of evidence in my past and present to support this view . Here is how I got from " meekness " to " humility":

Both describe a condition of right relationship with God and our fellows.

Both imply " teachability ".

I'd say the " meek " have positioned themselves as well as possible to recieve as many of His blessings [ inheritence ] as He chooses to bestow in this life .

I don't have to be as careful as you about my interpretations since I'm not prescribing them for general use. They serve me well . I think they probably served the O.T. folks quite well,also ,since human nature hasn't changed and God can't change .

Anyhow, I'm gonna be gone to Houston for a day or two to see a couple of the blessings [ grandkids ] I've recieved! The kids would have been born anyhow ,but apart from some God given " meekness " on my part , I wouldn't be able to enjoy them .

That's not what you said that prompted my response. But I believe you did get it right this time .

This is what you said: "If Jesus had never delivered the Sermon on the Mount , and we turned on Fox News tomorrow to see Osama Bin Laden saying it word for word , it would be the truth."

That statement told me that the concept is the truth regardless of who gives it. I don't believe that.

Don't condense my posts as your condensation looks a lot more like expansion to me. You added "as revealed in the words of the KJV bible only" and that is not honest nor my belief if you have read what I have posted in that matter. And you added "led by the Spirit's interpretation". I am not sure what your motive is for such misstatements of my post but it's a game I'll acknowlege and not play.

This was never a debate and will not become one as I am finished with it.

Gene,
Have a safe trip to Houston (and back) and a great time with your grandkids and other family. Enjoy!

Rick

Based on this thread and some others, I am starting to see some trends here.

Most, probably all of us, who have been active in posting have a personal realtionship with Jesus and are focused on having the proper understanding of the Word.

Most of us are very willing to discuss, debate, defend what we believe--there are no "pushovers" here <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

There seems to be consensus that a combination of personal study of the Bible, sensitivity to the Spirit, and listening to others is how we ought to approach things of the Lord. While we all agree sensitivity to the Holy Spirit is absoluetly essential, we seem to have a bit of disagreement on the balance between personal Bible study and receiving teaching.

The advantage with heavy reliance on personal study is realtive immunity to someone else leading us into error. The danger with leaning too heavily on personal study is falling into error because none of us get it 100% right all the time. It is hard to seperate our personal biases out of our study. It is easy to fall into prideful "do it yourself Christianity" with this approach, and be accountability to no one.

The advantage to heavy reliance on a teacher is realtive immunity to going out in "left field" all by ourselves. The danger of leaning too heavily on a teacher is falling into the same error as the teacher--being in left field with the teacher. It is easy to be brainwashed with this approach and quit thinking all together.

Reliance on the Holy Spirit is key to avoiding error in personal study AND while receiving teaching. However, we are not always perfect in following the Holy Spirit's leading.

So we are left with three ways to learn and grow, all three of which are subject to our human error. I find I am most confident when all three ways are in agreement.........when my own Bible study is in line what the teaching of those I have confidence in, and I sense the Holy Spirit's confirmation.

The Berean Jews in Acts show us the importance of personal Bible study. They were commneded for "searching the scriptures daily to see if those things were so", and their teacher was none other than Paul.

Plillip and the enuch show us the importance of teachers. God suspended the laws of nature to make sure the enuch had a teacher that could explain the scriptures. In fact, none of us would even be saved if it weren't for someone showing us the way.

Is there really any disagrement here? Don't we all strive to be sensistive to the Holy Spirit and evaluate the teaching we receive/our own ideas with the Spirit's leading?

Here are some of the human teachers/scholars who's views I consider heavily, not in any particular order. Notice they all tend to use an intellectual (vs emotional) approach.

CS Lewis
Norm Geisler
Walter Martin
Phillip Johnson
Josh McDowell

I also heavily consider the views of profs at conservative Evangelical Seminiaries, as well as the views of the translators of the KJV, NIV, NASB, and Amplified Bible. I guess I also take Mr Strong's word as to the exact definition of the Greek and Hebrew.

If I think I know something, but find one of these folks says it's different, it gives me pause and I look deeper.

I don't give much weight to the views of liberal Bible scholars, extemists, those who lack humility in the presentation of their views, or those with an obvious agenda.

An insolent by-stander asks (privately � thank you, sir!) "Ken, was that possibly your own thinking?"

Good point � up to a point; after that, irrelevant.

Whosever "voice" it was, I thought it was God's � so it's God's "opinion" that I've always sought to learn.

Whether the originating suggestion was His or my own, it turned-out to be the right idea.

.

Blaine,
That was the kind of excellent summation that you are quite skilled at. I agree with each aspect.

But I believe there is another trend that you do not discuss.

That is the trend of polarization based on some kind of "us versus them" mentality. It appears some believe that all of what some post is totally right and of absolute value and all of what others post is totally wrong and worthless. That mindset is obviously wrong and terribly damaging to the operation of the forum and does injustice to all invloved.

That has even given rise to questioning the accuracy and validity of the Scripture itself and that of the Bible version preferred. That's a topic that cannot be successfully given justice on a forum such as this, as was recently demonstrated. What it can and may have done for some folks in the wings is to imply that Scripture can't be trusted for the truth. While I hope that was never the intent, it may be the reality for some.

Certainly, Scripture has and will continue to be misused by some inappropriately, but as you have aptly pointed out; there are "no pushovers" among the frequenters of this forum. Deceptive attempts in the use of scripture to promote an agenda would be quickly called into question here. We may not always agree on a passage but I have yet to recognize any attempt at deception rising out of Scripture usage from the regular members.

We all need to come to an honest and full agreement of your second statement: "Most, probably all of us, who have been active in posting, have a personal relationship with Jesus and are focused on having the proper understanding of the Word." I fully agree. When it becomes suspect to me or blatantly plain that some are not in agreement with that statement from their posts, the thread unravels and its purpose is frustrated.

I believe we need to employ both generous helpings of love and the golden rule in our posts and dealings with each other. That is difficult when you believe you are under attack but I have come to understand that such attacks personally build faith. Nevertheless it is damaging to the Church as a whole when we cannibalize each other for prideful intents and I would love to see it stop.

Ricky,

Excellent point. In this polarization process, we seem to bypass that a person is only leaning toward a view. Instead, we equate this leaning with the full extreme version and argue aganinst that.

Blaine,
That's another good point. I'm sure we all have missed a posters intent or read too much into it. Certainly myself included. I will try to be aware of that pitfall in the hope of avoiding it. There's nothing to be gained jousting with windmills! Thank you.

I appreciate the polarization speak, gents.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

If we draw a line from the east to the west--it is of course infinite. There is never a terminal point of East or a terminal point of West...but simply east is delineated from west by its relative place of measurement on that imaginary line. Opinions strike me as the similar. In this case we name the line �Doctrinal Differences.� A dispute about this line may be sharp and the distance between two opinions may appear extreme but if you consider the length of the line, the two seemingly polar positions are not polar anymore, but simply two spaced points on the line. The more of the line you consider the less extreme the positions appear.

I think that when we take terminal positions on arguable subjects, we are guilty of not comprehending the possibilities and the fact that the intent and content of the Lord�s ways may be impossible for us to discern. We may view our position or the postion of others as a termination point on a line when in fact it is only that way because of a lack of greater comprehension on our part. We chronically fail to appreciate each other�s viewpoints and who knows what is in the mind of the Creator?

The good news of the gospel is clear, beyond that is not worth splitting wood.

Tom,

Good point!

Folks; When I have become contentious on here , it is prompted by the same basic theme:

I believe all truth comes from God . Period . The accuracy of mathmatics - an area where I remain particularly unskilled - is one form of truth . The accurate reporting of factual events - as discerned by our five senses - is another form of truth.

Truth takes many forms , but shares a common attribute ; it stands alone. It remains un - changed against all opinion to the contrary.

Jesus didn't only teach the truth with a clarity un- paralleled , He IS the TRUTH . If His intent was that His teachings would be contained in what would become a book - and that truth could not be found apart from " the book " , we would have one written directly by Him . Another Koran.

He wrote on our hearts . When I post a truth on here and it seems to contradict something you believe ; I am not moved to accept your correction just because you can string some verses together in a fashion that suits you . If you claim Divine interpretation in that " stringing " , You are even less convincing.

In short ; It's Christ around the Campfire ; not " the bible study around the campfire ".

Ricky , What you think about God does not change God . What you say about God tells me nothing of God , but reveals much about you .

But ----- If what you say about God is true and Osama says the same thing , how is he then not being truthful ?

I havn't put any trick questions to you . It's obvious at least some of your beliefs don't stand up to logic.

So long.

Gene,

Friend. When any of us become contentious, we are wrong. I have to struggle against this as much as anyone else. (Well, maybe not as much as some have here lately <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

It is easier to consider someone morally lacking, deceived of Satan, foolish, stupid, or having a hidden agenda--especially when they have accused us of that themselves--than it is to discuss the issue when their points are almost as good as our own.

I think all of us consider God's truth the be fixed and unchanging. However, since we don't always agree on the lesser issues, someone is wrong. A better way to think of it is a certain view is wrong, and a another view is right. Our task is to find which view is correct.

How can we do that when two folks are convinced God has written something on their heart, yet they do not agree? At least one view is wrong; maybe both. We cannot discern another person's heart, so we don't know who has heard most correctly from God.

I think this is where study of the written Word and teachers come in. If I disagree with you on a certain point, the first thing we should do is look to the scripture to try and resolve the issue. Next, we look at the views of others we respect. Prayer and being sensitive to the Holy Spirit are requesite throughout this process.

If we still can't come to an agreement, then we should probably just acknowledge each other's view and agree to disagree. I submit if what we were arguing about is as impotant to God as it is to us, He'd make it clear--like all the other truth's He has made abundantly clear.

The assumption for my comments is that those of us discussing and debating have been saved through the blood of Jesus. The rules change when dealing with unbelievers.

Blaine
Amen! Our first action should be to go to scripture. And if we still don't understand. Study some more.Always keeping in mind the doctrin of those we trust. Who have gone befor us.
But our intent should alwas be to know and understand whatever it is for ourself.God's word is a whole no part contradicts any other part,and if it appears to, we misunderstand that part of it. And we need to study it more.
IMHO.

Blaine,
Very good points. It's important to remember that doctrine quickly becomes dogma without a biblical reference.