What is biblical truth when there is no consensus?

[chevyontheriver]

Not at all.
If we only had apples for food, but we are now out of apples, we can assume that means we are out of food.

Basically, I want to see us building bridges instead of walls.

Yours is a question of authority. Who has it, each and every individual OR some democratic mean? Is it neither?

Who has truth in Mathematics? We don’t have issues there. Or not many just yet.

 

[All Becomes New]

Not at all.
If we only had apples for food, but we are now out of apples, we can assume that means we are out of food.

Basically, I want to see us building bridges instead of walls.

Well, you can't do that by appealing to pluralism.

 

[ozso]

This won’t win me any friends ………… it is Symbolic.

Religion makes it literal and mystical with the transubstantiation … to me that is not biblical... but what is biblical is the truth that we have Christ within …

As per 1 Cor_11 which is written to us (the church) we are to do this in remembrance of Him.

Our group always does this round Easter, but I encourage people to do it as often as they feel the need in their household.

It seems to me that Christians who view it as either symbolic or literal, both agree that it's a commandment of Christ that needs to be taken seriously and followed. And that's what matters the most about it in my opinion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some present their views as if they themselves are an authority on biblical interpretation.

Worst case, they attempt to end the discussion by claiming your argument is not with them.
Basically, playing the "God card".

Do we leave no room for the interpretations brought by others? Showing intolerance.

What is biblical truth when there is no consensus?

That's actually one of the most important questions you've asked so far Steven, and I appreciate that you've brought it up.

When there is no consensus on biblical truth, what do I do? Besides picking up the New Testament and reading the words of Jesus or one of His apostles to remind me to "live at peace with all men as far as it is possible," from time to time I turn to a book I've had since the 1990s by brother Gerald L. Sittser, Loving Across Our Differences. Although it might surprise a lot of people to hear this from me, his book has been one of the linchpins of encouragement and admonition that has served to remind over the years as to how and why I am to fellowship with all other Christians (i.e. to do so as peacefully and as constructively as possible).

Being the easily resentful person that I am, I have to constantly remind myself of some needful things regarding the implemenation of the virtue of "forbearance," and as Gerald Sittser shares,

​

The essential meaning of the Greek word is "to bear with," "to give slack to." Forbearance requires that we give people room to be themselves, that we accept them under those terms without communicating a spirit of disapproval or judgment, and that we rejoice in them as a special creation of God. It is a way of saying, "This is who you are in my eyes and I am glad for it."​

​

The apostle Paul commands forbearance of us in Ephesians 4:2 (see also Col 3:3). In that same verse he mentions three character qualities that make forbearance possible: lowliness, meekness and patience (RSV). Surely meekness is necessary if we are ever going to give people room to be who they are. Meek people do not claim the right to remake people into inferior copies of themselves. They do not try to impose their imperious will upon them. They are not tyrannical, dominant, judgmental or bossy. They do not use their insights into the character of others as a pretense to force them to submit to their will, nor do they use their concern for others as an excuse to dictate exactly how they ought to believe and live. Meek people let God be Lord of their own lives and therefore of the lives of other people too. (pp. 66-67)​

Like I said, I have to constantly remind myself of these exhortations in order to keep them in my own mind's sights, because I know that I am very combative at heart, intellectually willing to sting others and able to decimate them with but a few all too casual strokes if I let myself do so. And doing so isn't isn't always a good thing (?), especially where my interactions with brothers and sisters in Christ are concerned. ...

I'm still working on the part of it where I apply it to encounters with atheistic 'trolls,' though. I can't seem to master that one yet... and I guess I need some prayer on it too, big time.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"Tolerance" is not a Biblical virtue.

The Father sent Jesus, so we could interact and not be struck dead every so often. Sounds a pinch more than tolerant to me.

 

[All Becomes New]

The Father sent Jesus, so we could interact and not be struck dead every so often. Sounds a pinch more than tolerant to me.

Not without God giving up His Holiness, which makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Some present their views as if they themselves are an authority on biblical interpretation.

Worst case, they attempt to end the discussion by claiming your argument is not with them.
Basically, playing the "God card".

Do we leave no room for the interpretations brought by others? Showing intolerance.

What is biblical truth when there is no consensus?

On the essentials unity
On the non essentials liberty
In all things charity.

I believe Jesus teaching that the Holy Spirit would lead you into all truth and bring to remembrance everything I have taught you was primarily applicable to the disciples/Apostles who wrote the bible, not for us.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Some present their views as if they themselves are an authority on biblical interpretation.

Worst case, they attempt to end the discussion by claiming your argument is not with them.
Basically, playing the "God card".

Do we leave no room for the interpretations brought by others? Showing intolerance.

What is biblical truth when there is no consensus?

There doesn't need to be consensus to establish truth. The 1st century Jews did not have consensus, only a remnant found their Messiah. Like the Bereans, they searched the scriptures and believed. Then of course heresies crept in and we are warned of it. Much of the New Testament teaches us to stay the course, reject traditions of men and avoid deception. If a Christian is weak they will fall into the multitude of categories that infiltrate God's truth. This is the adversary's tool.

And with all due respect, there is no such thing as playing the "God card". Blessings.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Not without God giving up His Holiness, which makes all the difference in the world.

But God didn't give up His Holiness, and He did send Jesus. The above post does not make sense.

 

[All Becomes New]

But God didn't give up His Holiness, and He did send Jesus. The above post does not make sense.

If anyone (besides Christ) was in the direct presence of God, they would die. That has not gone away. But I was refering to your comment on tolerance since that was my original contention. IDK how people read the OT and think, "Yeah, YHWH is definitely a God of tolerance."

 

[grasping the after wind]

Some present their views as if they themselves are an authority on biblical interpretation.

Worst case, they attempt to end the discussion by claiming your argument is not with them.
Basically, playing the "God card".

Do we leave no room for the interpretations brought by others? Showing intolerance.

What is biblical truth when there is no consensus?

Truth has no relation to consensus. There is no necessary correlation between the two nor is there a cause-and-effect relationship. Something being true does not cause consensus among people about that thing and a consensus about a thing does not cause a thing to be true. As far as a biblical truth, one must rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance in interpretation, though there are surely some things one will find in the Bible that one will consider to be self-evidently true and others, (the Resurrection and saving power of God's Grace among others) that if one were to say they are not true one can simply abandon the Bible and the faith altogether.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

If anyone (besides Christ) was in the direct presence of God, they would die. That has not gone away. But I was refering to your comment on tolerance since that was my original contention. IDK how people read the OT and think, "Yeah, YHWH is definitely a God of tolerance."

So you're denying the trinity?

Jesus is God also.

 

[All Becomes New]

So you're denying the trinity?

Jesus is God also.

Where did I say I deny the Trinity?

Abraham met with Christ in Genesis 18. I affirm the Trinity fully.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Where did I say I deny the Trinity?

Abraham met with Christ in Genesis 18. I affirm the Trinity fully.

You wrote: "If anyone (besides Christ) was in the direct presence of God"

Thus separating the two.

Furthermore, Moses was in the presence of God, and Joshua stayed behind in God's presence when Moses left.

Therefore, "if anyone (besides Christ)" is incorrect.

 

[All Becomes New]

You wrote: "If anyone (besides Christ) was in the direct presence of God"

Thus separating the two.

Furthermore, Moses was in the presence of God, and Joshua stayed behind in God's presence when Moses left.

Therefore, "if anyone (besides Christ)" is incorrect.

Why did YHWH say he could not show Himself directly to Moses then?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Why did YHWH say he could not show Himself directly to Moses then?

Because He couldn't specifically for Moses, Joshua had a closer relationship, it seems. Joshua just wasn't the spokesman.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Why did YHWH say he could not show Himself directly to Moses then?

On that topic:

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
(John 14:8-10)

This is kind of why I asked if you were denying the trinity.

 

[All Becomes New]

On that topic:

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
(John 14:8-10)

This is kind of why I asked if you were denying the trinity.

Do you think the Father IS the Son? IS the Son the Father? IS the Spirit the Son? I'm not the one denying the trinity here.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Some present their views as if they themselves are an authority on biblical interpretation.

Worst case, they attempt to end the discussion by claiming your argument is not with them.
Basically, playing the "God card".

Do we leave no room for the interpretations brought by others? Showing intolerance.

What is biblical truth when there is no consensus?

Each of us must discern what we will accept as "truth. We do this through the help of others whom we respect and the humility to listen to the Holy Spirit guiding us.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Do you think the Father IS the Son? IS the Son the Father? IS the Spirit the Son? I'm not the one denying the trinity here.

The verse explains it perfectly. Jesus is indwelt by the Father, the same way we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. So whenever anyone comes to be judged, they see the face of Jesus.