I was just getting ready to do that
Why was it necessary for Christ to hide truth in a parable
- Thread starter TomL
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
And it was the rebellious Jews who opposed Jesus, the Father and Moses that He was telling them why things were being hidden from them.
Ahar
Active member
That was fast, Thank you sir.
Ok,
But to the calvinists
If man was born unable to receive truth concerning God, why did Jesus need to speak in parable to prevent belief
He would temporarily to accomplish the crucifixionI think a few people here should black out that text. God is love, and a loving God would never actively prevent people from coming to him and being saved.
1 Corinthians 2:8 (ESV) — 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Diserner
Well-known member
How horrible this all is!!?
Oh for the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus!!
Open rebuke is better than secret love. (Prov. 27:5 KJV)
Please consider:
We know that there are new revelations yet to come:
Daniel 12: 9 And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.
and in
Revelations 10:8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, “Go, take the small scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel standing on the sea and on the land.” 9 And I went to the angel and said, “Give me the small scroll.”
“Take it and eat it,” he said. “It will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.” 10 So I took the small scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it; and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned bitter. probably telling us of a new interpretation of an old revelation rather than a completely new revelation which might contradict Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18.
In John 16:12, Jesus said: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. Hence, Jesus knew some truth that He was unable to disclose to us, and He also knew that this truth would someday be disclosed to the Church. In other words, Jesus knew that the Church was going to receive a new revelation in the far future.
So this being the case, I ask: would not GOD bear witness in HIS Word to a revelation that HE intended to give in the future? Well, I think HE would because HE has done it this way before and if so, then wouldn't a person like Paul (who had gone to heaven and learned the whole truth) and John who ate the little bible most likely be under some leading from the Holy Spirit to bear witness in their writings to these hidden heavenly truths so that, when it was time for their public disclosure later on, there would be some scriptural attestation to them?
But Paul and John could not put it in their open writings in such a way as would disclose the secret ahead of time, right? No, the testimony would have to be hidden somehow so that it remained a secret until the right time.
Therefore, Paul and John would hide the testimony in their writings, knowing that until the time of their revelation, their readers would not really understand what they had written, and that would they make up interpretations which would not be entirely true.
It also stands to reason that these false interpretations would endure unopposed by the truth until the general disclosure in the end times, at which time the new proper interpretation would be made known...
As to why HE chose revelations to be sequential and hidden as hints only for sometime, I only have speculation....
We know that there are new revelations yet to come:
Daniel 12: 9 And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.
and in
Revelations 10:8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, “Go, take the small scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel standing on the sea and on the land.” 9 And I went to the angel and said, “Give me the small scroll.”
“Take it and eat it,” he said. “It will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.” 10 So I took the small scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it; and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned bitter. probably telling us of a new interpretation of an old revelation rather than a completely new revelation which might contradict Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18.
In John 16:12, Jesus said: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. Hence, Jesus knew some truth that He was unable to disclose to us, and He also knew that this truth would someday be disclosed to the Church. In other words, Jesus knew that the Church was going to receive a new revelation in the far future.
So this being the case, I ask: would not GOD bear witness in HIS Word to a revelation that HE intended to give in the future? Well, I think HE would because HE has done it this way before and if so, then wouldn't a person like Paul (who had gone to heaven and learned the whole truth) and John who ate the little bible most likely be under some leading from the Holy Spirit to bear witness in their writings to these hidden heavenly truths so that, when it was time for their public disclosure later on, there would be some scriptural attestation to them?
But Paul and John could not put it in their open writings in such a way as would disclose the secret ahead of time, right? No, the testimony would have to be hidden somehow so that it remained a secret until the right time.
Therefore, Paul and John would hide the testimony in their writings, knowing that until the time of their revelation, their readers would not really understand what they had written, and that would they make up interpretations which would not be entirely true.
It also stands to reason that these false interpretations would endure unopposed by the truth until the general disclosure in the end times, at which time the new proper interpretation would be made known...
As to why HE chose revelations to be sequential and hidden as hints only for sometime, I only have speculation....
Last edited:
Diserner
Well-known member
I will answer this, as this criticism also touches on my position.
Scripture clearly says the god of this world blinds the unbelieving, that we are born children of wrath, and that the natural man does not understand the things of God.
The criticism then comes, "Why does Jesus use parables if people already can't understand?"
This criticism is misplaced for a couple of reasons.
#1. The use of difficult parables was not what prevented them from seeing the truths. but rather an obstacle to them. It was not like the parables made it LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, but rather it filtered out those who would not being willing to humble themselves.
#2. The use of difficult parables would be impossible for Jesus to stop people from understanding, if they could all naturally understand. If people could NATURALLY UNDERSTAND all spiritual truth, parables would not be a sufficient means to stop them.
#3. The use of difficult parables does not deny the need for grace, but rather puts a higher demand on its need. What is happening here is the proud are being resisted and the humble are being graced. NOTHING about that denies the need for grace.
When we consider these factors, it is an illogical objection to claim that the use of difficult parables somehow proves people don't need the grace of God to understand spiritual truth.
If truth must be hid to prevent belief then obviously there was a capability to believe.
civic
Well-known member
Ditto
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
How horrible this all is!!?
Oh for the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus!!
The Truth always stands up to scrutiny.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
There is a competition for the narrative of who God is in this life.
The Gospel "pierces" that darkness.
It is a very easy answer. Because the Father willed it. Everything the Father willed, Jesus did.
You are missing the point entirely
If man has no ability to believe and depends on a gift of faith as Calvinism teaches what need is there to hide truth to prevent belief
it makes no sense
You talk as though we know God inside and out. Don't you intend on teaching God on how things work? Consider that there are two sides of a huge wall. On one side is humanity, on the other is God. There is a narrow gate in the wall that only a few will find. The owner of this place within which we live has set a rule. Only those who enter via the narrow gate, which has really rusty hinges, and one must strive, as Jesus said, to open it, can get to the other side of the wall. However, God's only Son came through the gate one day, and sought out those the Father had given to Him. That's it. He isn't there for anyone else. Jesus will not violate the Father's will.
So He tells them about the way through the wall, and doesn't tell everyone else. That is by design. If you know what God's designs are, please tell us. They aren't in the Bible. We just have faint glimpses of what the Father has chosen to reveal to us. This is such that when the disciples asked if Jesus was going to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time in Acts 1, He didn't say yes or no. He said, it's none of their business to know the times or seasons established by the authority of the Father. There are things that we can know, cannot know, and things we aren't to know or seek out. You are entering the "we aren't to seek out" territory.
Diserner
Well-known member
Could something in the Bible that logically contradicts the doctrine of Calvinism prove it wrong?
Or would it always be "we aren't to seek out" territory.
The not to seek out territory are those things that God has not shared about Himself. If He wanted us to know He would have told us. Do you suppose He means us to assume His nature? I'm sure that the Bible is perfect, and can be used for all kinds of things. If He wanted us to know, it would be in the Bible.
Diserner
Well-known member
Okay.
Let me break this down logically and please follow me closely.
If you saw something in the Bible that seemed to logically contradict Calvinism—would your immediate assumption be, "That CAN'T contradict Calvinism, so it must be a mystery that God doesn't want us to seek out."
No. However you stress the meaning of logically... They aren't taking God's nature that we do have into account. They are judging God by man's standard.
Rockson
Well-known member
Sorry Armylngst but the one you were speaking too doesn't need to know God inside out to know what belief you're holding to is error. What we do know tells us that.
Where do we read it has rusty hinges?
But you in your post injected you're religious paradigm about who gets save and why? So why can't we ask you the same question you asked us, You talk as though we know God inside and out. Don't you intend on teaching God on how things work?
Seems you're stacking the deck in your favor. You have a right to think you know what you know but nobody else does. If we KNOW you're wrong we're in you're not allowed in that territory. So how about we respectfully say to you you're not allowed in your territory. . Please get out of it today!
