Where Wisdom Lies

There is a reality in the life of the believer, in that many believers find it difficult to draw a distinction between experience, discernment and the revelation of God. The practical outworking of this is to know when the things we hold true are grounded in experience, and when they are rooted in revelation. It may also be that we would need to know when something is valid objectively. And while all real knowledge must in finality be grounded in experience, giving rise to intuition and discernment, there is a fine line between discernment, intuition and revelation of God. Moreover, experience itself is not to be made light of, because we must experience truth in our own lives, and not only hold to doctrines and teachings. If we do not experience truth, then we do not have truth at all, but merely knowledge. Moreover, knowledge itself is not the same as experience. As with most things in life, separating knowledge from experience is the point at which deliverance comes. If what we have is intimate knowledge derived from experience, and not real knowledge, given by revelation of God, then the result will be an obsession and not [a living] faith.

My brain is tired

You state a lot of assertions about truth... can you give us a definition of truth, so we can see if it fits your assertions?

.
.

True enough.

Divine revelation as found in Scripture must be the basis for all our beliefs. And unless we rightly divide the Word of God, and gather all the Scriptures pertaining to a certain doctrine together to see the biblical teaching, we will not know the truth.

Here's a good example of failing to see clear Gospel truth, and thus going into false doctrine: There is another thread where a few individuals are insisting that water baptism is ESSENTIAL for salvation.

Of course, in view of all Gospel truth, that is just pure nonsense. But can you convince these people that it is false doctrine which must be abandoned? Not at all. When someone holds a false belief, they double down on that belief rather than simply abandon it.

“When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple.” Acts 9:20

Whilst I can understand your question and the force of their meaning, perhaps especially your point about 'assertions' - and even the rational character of your request to supply a definition of truth, what I wrote, unfortunately, was NOT intended as an apologetic; rather, an 'assertion' based on the direction of Scripture.

In the text where my post was taken from I was asserting a particular meaning that follows to the inevitable conclusion as to how to explain why the saints in Jerusalem could NOT discern that "SAUL" was now not only a believer, but was in Jerusalem to confirm his apostleship. Which thing was done.

So my own thought historically, when I first came to these things, was to ask myself WHY had it been possible for the believers in Jerusalem to be robbed of the benefit of having the apostles and prophets of God in their midst and yet to FAIL to discern that Paul was now a believer and so they had no spiritual reason to fear Paul.

Yet to be complete in my response to your reply I would have to say that it would NOT be possible to answer your question in truth because TRUTH cannot be derived in living meaning unless it is by the hand of God.

The believers in Jerusalem had 'intimate' knowledge - they knew SAUL was a Pharisee of Pharisees - yet they were WRONG. He was an apostle of Christ.

Proverbs 9:10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Job 28:28) 28And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Perhaps it is impossible to abandon 'pure nonsense' when our hearts and minds are so influenced by worldly realities that endlessly temp us to turn inward - both in sight of text and in reason of the natural mind, so that we uncover the flesh rather too often.

I merely asked you to define the word "truth."

A.) You used the word "truth" 4 times in your opening post, yet you cannot define the word.
B.) Some might suggest we shouldn't use a word when we don't know what it means.



It's probably best if I exit the thread, and leave you to it.
You have a great weekend.
God Bless.

.

Don't feel a need to turn away. I am not offended by the implication of your comments. Perhaps you could define truth for me so that I can attach to that meaning instead of the one I gave.

I don't recall you giving any definition for "truth."

.

.

So lets attach to a speculation that I DID give a definition of truth, and you DID assert that truth (as a meaning) needs defining.

That just seems reasonable if you wish to help.

If undefined in your seeming inferential meaning then any expression of a claimed truth, or the dictum itself; without the prepositional tense of the meaning of truth - is flawed.

So please give your definition.

I would have answered your specific question earlier by simply pointing to the biblical claim that Jesus "is the way, the truth and the life". Then I remembered that every believer in Jerusalem knew that when they rejected Paul.

Hes describing the Holy Spirit

"In the text where my post was taken from I was asserting a particular meaning that follows to the inevitable conclusion as to how to explain why the saints in Jerusalem could NOT discern that "SAUL" was now not only a believer, but was in Jerusalem to confirm his apostleship. Which thing was done."

That (above) was the rational component I asserted to raise the speculation itself, whereas the spiritual reality of who Paul was, came by the hand of a prophet finding Paul, and taking him to the apostles. It took a prophet to discern Paul's true condition in Jerusalem. NONE of the other believers could discern Paul's true condition. So whilst in a sense your claim may be an implied meaning in Agabus who was a prophet having the capacity to discern truth, it was NOT by the Holy Spirit expressly that his service was produced, but by his prophetic mind. A mind that has it equivalence with being spiritually minded. In short, it was an obedient and faithful man.

My orginal post is not an apologetic argument.. It is a claim to consequence. And the consequence in Jerusalem would have been very different had Paul found himself utterly rejected. As it was he was both received and approved by Peter, John and others in Jerusalem.

I would say that experience is knowledge, but I think I understand what you are saying. A person doesn't know that they don't know until they hear about that which they don't know. Yet merely hearing about something doesn't mean that they know the truth, they merely have heard about it, which is to say that they should know that they don't know.

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 2 Cor 5:16

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. John 12:44

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. John 14:24

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. John 14:7

I agree that this may well be approaching his description of truth, that is if the answer to the question posed in the title is, "The truth lies in spirit."
addendum: Looking back, I see it was not a question that was posed as much as implied, since the title is a statement. Which understandably causes one to wonder when (or if) an answer would be forthcoming.

I believe he did indirectly. Notice: "...real knowledge, given by revelation of God..."
Briefly, divine revelation. IOW the Holy Bible. One could go a step further and say that Jesus Himself is the Truth.

I agree with that way of parsing the tense of what I have actually said, or at least intended to say. In some ways there may be little benefit to giving attraction to a doctrinally implied meaning that 'diets' to an utterly necessary fact of Salvation. And I only say 'diets' because I am expressing a sense of the enteric nervous system with its 'brain in the gut' precept in the fringes of medical science. A fact of the 'entrails' but neurologically implicit in behaviour arising out of non clinical depression.

I sense that many of our difficulties in communicating truth, as we declare it confidently to the whosoever, when we say assuredly that God commands all men everywhere to repentance because He has appointed a day of Judgement., lies in the fact that we cannot know any truth at all to save us, other than formed around us in our schools, our churches, and our public squares (extension to creation itself) - until we are first taught by God. So then we do confidently declare the entire truth. We say, God commands all men everywhere to repentance because He has appointed a day of Judgement - and immediately realise in the very power of saying it to the whosoever, that unless God intervenes to the ear that ought to be open to Him when we speak of Christ and His sufficiency - then the whosoever may be reprobate.

Mine too.

So to answer that 'forthcoming' question.

FEAR

Rhomphaeam said:
If what we have is intimate knowledge derived from experience, and not real knowledge, given by revelation of God, then the result will be an obsession and not [a living] faith.



Excellent Post and easy to understand -----and your last paragraph here is spot on -----