Must We Be Less Certain of Truth Than Elijah?

This post is written for Brandon E, and it has specific application to this comment that he made.  It also has, however, much broader application.

The prophets of old, including Elijah, spoke boldly in the name of the Lord.  Can we today – that is, we who are not prophets – speak that boldly?  Of course, we can.  Elijah and the other prophets were bold for the very purpose that we could be bold.  They risked their lives that the truth  of God might not perish from the earth.  Moreover, Elijah had the Law of Moses for corroboration but we have the entire Old Testament and New Testament.  Thus we ought to be sure and certain in the things we believe about God.

See also Contrast Eve with Jesus and We Have Something Eve Didn’t Have.

14 Replies to “Must We Be Less Certain of Truth Than Elijah?”

  1. Less certain that Elijah…of what?

    Should we be certain like Elijah that the Lord is the true and living God, and that Baal is a false, finite god? Yes. That Jesus is Lord? Yes. (For anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord, the choice is obvious.)

    That Mike Gantt’s doctrinal particulars about the revelation of Scripture are absolutely right with no possibility of being mistaken, even though he is only one among those who confess that Jesus is Lord and are interpreting the same body of Scriptures whom we can find that has arrived at his combination of views through their own reading of Scripture? No. Not unless we have very good reasons for it that do not arbitrarily grant special treatment to Mike Gantt.

  2. There is 1) that which we know as truth because God has made it known to us, 2) that about which we have opinions (and therefore about which we cannot be sure), 3) that about which we know very little, and 4) that which we don’t even know that we don’t know. I only write on my blogs from the first category.

    1. There’s also things that we think God revealed to us, but He hasn’t. You must admit it in the case of others who have the Bible and yet teach things you contradict, why not remain open to the possibility concerning yourself?

  3. I’ve told you repeatedly, Brandon, that I carefully read every objection I receive. I used to hold the views that you hold. I changed my mind because God, through His Holy Spirit (who is available to every human being), opened my eyes to a clearer understanding. Thus, all you have to do is present to me a clearer understanding of the Scriptures than what I have and I will embrace it – for that is how I got to where I am. And I will continue to live this way before the Lord because it has served me so well.


    1. Thus, all you have to do is present to me a clearer understanding of the Scriptures than what I have and I will embrace it – for that is how I got to where I am.

      I’m not sure that you would, at least not in all cases.

      For example, that “the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17) and “the Lord Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18) clearly indicates that the Spirit is not a separate being from the Lord God.

      I also do think that what would be “clear” to you is somewhat muddied by your misconceptions. I do think that you were probably unwittingly tri-theistic in your concept concerning the Trinity before you converted to whatever we would call your present views on the nature of God, as evidenced by your manifested unfamiliarity with the historical usage of the word “persons” when applied to God, your unwillingness or inability to see that “distinct” and “separate” are not equivalent concepts (John 10:30; 14:7-10) and that the Father, Son, and Spirit being distinct but not separate is not a matter of addition or subtraction but of relation, etc.

      I also don’t think that “what you have” is that sound. I believe that the Scripture plainly reveals that the Father and the Son existing at the same time, and yet you claim.that the Father “became” the Son and ceased to be the Father, and come up with all sorts of secret or hidden ways the Bible allegedly reveals this, that are rather unimpressive. For example, you claim that the words “heir” and “inheritance” when used as a metaphor and applied to God must mean that the Father must “die” and cease to exist as Father, even though the Scriptures reveals the Father and God as existing at the same time as the Son and the believers as the many sons and heirs of God (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 4:7). By the same strength of logic, we could conclude all sorts of contradictory things about God and/or Christ. I once met someone who said that since Christ is the “image” of God (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4; the Greek word means a “copy,” as in a writing copy) He is not God (for how can a copy of something be the thing itself?), but a separate being who is a “copy” of God. Are you persuaded? Neither am I. But it has all the reasonableness of your claims about words like “heirs” and “inheritance.” And this one reason why I haven’t found your speculative reasonings and analogies convincing.

  4. 2 Corinthians 3 is a notoriously difficult passage to follow. Nevertheless, one must try, as is always the case with understanding any passage of Scripture, to read all of its statements in context. If you follow the flow of the chapter, it’s hard to see how Paul was trying to teach in this verse about the trinity and, specifically, that there was no difference between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Besides, there are too many other clearer passages where Jesus and the Holy Spirit as understood as different beings.

    I think when you read the Scriptures “wearing Trinitarian glasses” you tend to “see” references to the Trinity in such passages, but were you to simply be reading the Scriptures themselves, without that preconceived notion, it’s impossible to see how they would lead you to that destination.

    1. On the contrary, I think you are reading the Scriptures from your glasses that has it that the Spirit not only distinct, but a separate being from God. But if that were the case, we would never anticipate such a passage that says that the Lord is the Spirit and the Lord Spirit. “Lord” and “Spirit” are set in apposition as strongly as the compound “Father” and “God,” and the Lord is identified as the Spirit just as strongly as He is with the Father in Isa. 9:6. People interpret 2 Cor. 3:17-18 with various emphasis, but most who notice the passage at least see an unmistakable reference to the Spirit’s deity. There are plenty of other passages that indicate that God, the Lord, and the Spirit (or equivalents in expression), though distinct, are not separate beings, especially considering that God, the Father, Christ, and the Spirit all said to indwell the believers, but no one has the realization that there are separate beings in them. The flow of this passage is that when the heart turns from the law of Moses to the Lord (Christ, who is God) who is the Spirit there is freedom, and then by beholding Him we are transformed unto the same image as Christ from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit. He’s not formally “teaching the trinity” in some systematic way; he’s assuming that the Lord and the Spirit are not separate.

    1. “Christ is Lord!” is something I also can understand, trust and obey.

      But I can also see that the Lord is the Spirit and the Lord Spirit indicates that the Lord and the Spirit are not separate beings, any more that the Father and the Son are separate beings.

  5. As for your first sentence, I rejoice to see it (Psalm 34:1-3).

    As for your second sentence, it’s headache-inducing Trinitarian double talk. It sounds spiritual but doesn’t even make sense. And even if you had a trillion people professing allegiance to it, it still wouldn’t make sense.

    1. You mean, it doesn’t make sense you. But the incarnation (the infinite God becoming a finite man) also doesn’t make sense to a lot of people. What doesn’t make sense about saying that the Spirit is not a separate being from the Lord any more than the Father and the Son are not separate beings? Are you open to the possibility that it does make sense in ways that you don’t presently see, or to the possibility that many truths in Scripture–especially about the infinite and eternal God–are beyond the full comprehension of our finite minds, and don’t need to be fully comprehended by us before we accept them as true?

    1. But here I’m only affirming what the Bible says. The Bible says there is only one God, one Lord, one Spirit. But it calls the Father, Son, and Spirit “Lord,” and describes or identifies the Father, Son, and Spirit as God. It says that the incarnate Son’s name will be called mighty God and eternal Father, says that the Lord is the Spirit, and indicates that the Spirit is the “Lord Spirit,” etc.

      I am not saying that the Son is the Son and is also the Spirit in the same sense (as described in your A = A, A = B, B = A construct). I am saying that upon reviewing all the biblical data it is clear the Father, Son, and Spirit exist at the same time and yet it is untenable that the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate beings. I am saying that the Son and the Spirit are distinct and at the same time not separate. Practically or in our experience the reality and presence of the Spirit of Christ is inseparable from Christ Himself, even as to see the Son is to see the Father. Expressions like “triune” and “trinity” came in later to describe or summarize this reality in Scripture.

    2. If a = b

      Then taxi cab = tbxi cbb

      Very funny, Mike. 🙂 And an inspiration…

      (1) Do I make it alright?

      bubble = auaale (Austrian Airlines serving ale)

      (2) Let me make it alright:

      by bus = ay aus (Oops! It’s been an Aussie, not an Austrian 😉 )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.