Renaissance Ministries Meeting #19
Navigating Truth: A Sunday Morning Exploration of Faith, Revelation, and Divine Understanding
The intersection of faith and reason, revelation and scripture, personal experience and universal truth formed the heart of a spirited Sunday morning discussion among a group of Christians grappling with fundamental questions about how we know what we know about God. What emerged was a rich tapestry of perspectives that illuminated both the unity and diversity within Christian thought, as well as the eternal human struggle to understand divine truth in a finite world.
The Standard of Truth: Scripture as Foundation
The conversation began with Leonard sharing insights from a conference talk by Denver Snuffer titled “In Defense of Jesus Christ.” This immediately raised questions about the source and authority of spiritual knowledge. Charlie and Susan Gutierrez, along with Armond Boulware, consistently advocated for the Bible as the ultimate standard against which all other claimed revelations must be measured. As Susan articulated, “Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good,” emphasizing that even the Bible itself calls us to test everything, including biblical claims, through the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
This position reflects a classical Protestant approach to authority—sola scriptura—while acknowledging the necessary role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation. Susan’s personal testimony of being “anti-Christ” for fifteen years before returning to faith underscored her conviction that the Bible must remain the unchanging reference point in a world full of competing spiritual claims. Her concern was practical: “We also need to be aware that Satan and his demons can also speak to us and imitate and pretend to be messengers of light.”
Armond reinforced this perspective by emphasizing the “fear of the Lord” as essential to avoiding the trap of “leaning too much on our own understanding.” His position advocated for having “that one check right, that one source and one reference of being the Bible” as the means of maintaining both accountability and unity among believers.
The Continuing Revelation Debate
Leonard represented a different perspective, one informed by his Mormon background and current association with the covenant Christian movement following Denver Snuffer. His argument rested on the premise that God continues to speak to His children today, just as He spoke to biblical prophets. “Jesus talks. He still says things, Oh, stop talking. I agree. He only talks, but he talks to whoever he chooses to talk to,” Leonard contended, citing Jesus’s conversation with Cain after Abel’s murder as evidence that divine communication didn’t cease with the biblical period.
This position raises profound questions about the nature of revelation and religious authority. Leonard acknowledged that his “larger standard” includes additional canonical works like the Book of Mormon, while maintaining that these sources don’t contradict biblical truth but rather expand upon it. His approach embodied the “ask, seek, and knock” methodology that Jesus outlined, treating this as a scientific-like process for discovering spiritual truth.
The tension here reflects a fundamental divide in Christian thought: Does God continue to provide new revelation, or was revelation complete with the apostolic era? Leonard’s position suggests that limiting God’s communication to the biblical period artificially constrains divine sovereignty, while his critics worry that opening the door to continuing revelation creates dangerous possibilities for error and manipulation.
The Scientific Method and Spiritual Truth
Thomas Abshier offered a unique perspective by attempting to bridge scientific methodology with spiritual inquiry. His “Conscious Point Physics” theory represents an ambitious attempt to ground Christian theology in what he claims is a comprehensive understanding of reality’s fundamental structure. “When we apply the scientific method in an attempt to prove spiritual truth, it requires applying inductive reasoning to something divinely revealed. Such truths are postulates that we attempt to prove through historical examples and their application to our current situation. The fruit of actions directed by the revelation of divine law is the inductive proof of their truth. A preponderance of evidence consistent with the proposition that a divinely revealed law guides toward a good life experience is our best evidence of its divine origin and Truth,” he acknowledged, arguing that the principles of hypothesis testing and evidence evaluation can apply to spiritual matters.
Thomas’s approach involved treating the Bible as a reliable dataset against which other truth claims could be tested. His Conscious Point Physics, while admittedly originating in a “drug-induced vision,” has been subjected to rigorous testing against both scientific observation and biblical revelation. “Is there any evidence that contradicts the postulate that the universe is composed of only God, or that the Biblical revelation will produce the ?” became his key question, whether applied to physical theories or spiritual claims.
This methodology appealed to Lucie, who advocated for using “logic and whatever evidence you can find” when the full scientific method isn’t applicable. Her concern about different people receiving different spiritual messages when they pray highlighted a genuine epistemological challenge: How do we distinguish genuine divine revelation from psychological projection or cultural conditioning?
The Paradox of Human Divinity
One of the most theologically complex discussions centered on the biblical statement “Ye are gods” from Psalm 82:6, which Jesus referenced in John 10:34. This verse sparked debate about the nature of human beings and their relationship to divinity. Thomas’s conscious point physics provided one framework for understanding this, suggesting that humans are composed of God’s very substance while remaining dependent upon Him for existence.
Susan expressed concern about this concept’s potential for abuse: “If somebody tried to live now in this realm that you’re talking about, I think that that could create a lot of dysfunction.” Her worry reflected legitimate historical precedents where claims of divinity or direct divine connection have led to antinomianism—the belief that moral law doesn’t apply to the spiritually enlightened.
Thomas acknowledged this danger while maintaining that his theory actually reinforces human dependence on God rather than promoting spiritual independence. “We will never have a Kingdom, be another God, have another universe of our own, and be able to create it independently of Him. We are, and will always be dependent on God,” he explained, attempting to maintain both human dignity and divine sovereignty.
The discussion revealed how the same biblical text can support vastly different theological conclusions depending on one’s interpretive framework. Leonard’s Mormon background contributed yet another layer, as LDS theology historically taught that humans can become gods in their own right, while evangelical participants emphasized the eternal distinction between Creator and creature.
The Process of Sanctification
Despite their disagreements about revelation and metaphysics, the group found remarkable unity in their understanding of Christian living. Susan’s description of the sanctification process—accepting Christ as Savior and Lord, then being gradually transformed through His power—resonated across theological boundaries. Her emphasis on evidence-based faith, collecting testimonies of dramatic life transformations, provided a practical application of the scientific mindset to spiritual matters.
Charlie’s observation about his wife’s collection of conversion testimonies illustrated how behavioral change serves as empirical evidence for spiritual truth claims. When someone’s fundamental character transforms so dramatically that even their ex-spouse remarries them, it provides compelling evidence that something real has occurred, regardless of one’s theological framework for explaining it.
The group agreed that authentic Christian experience produces observable results: reduced profanity, improved relationships, decreased destructive behaviors, and increased love for others. This practical consensus suggested that while Christians may disagree about the mechanics of revelation or the metaphysics of reality, they generally agree about the fruits of genuine faith.
The Challenge of Practical Application
Perhaps the most significant tension emerged between abstract theological concepts and practical Christian living. Thomas’s conscious point physics, while intellectually fascinating, raised questions about its practical value for daily discipleship. Susan’s concern about the potential for abstract theological concepts to undermine moral responsibility reflected a pastoral wisdom born from experience.
The discussion revealed a fundamental challenge in Christian thought: How do we maintain intellectual honesty about the mysteries of faith while avoiding the paralysis that can come from overanalyzing the foundations of belief? Armond’s emphasis on the “fear of the Lord” provided one solution—maintaining reverent humility before God regardless of our theoretical understanding of His nature.
Thomas’s recent revelation about living to bring God maximum joy offered a practical application of his abstract theory. Rather than getting lost in metaphysical speculation, he focused on the concrete question: “How can I live my life that absolutely gives God joy?” This approach demonstrated how even the most esoteric theological concepts must ultimately be measured by their contribution to Christlike living.
The Unity in Diversity
What emerged most clearly from this rich discussion was the possibility of maintaining fellowship despite significant theological differences. Leonard’s commitment to additional revelation, Thomas’s cosmic consciousness theory, and the others’ biblical conservatism created tensions, but didn’t destroy their fundamental unity in Christ.
This unity rested on several shared foundations: commitment to Jesus as Lord and Savior, acceptance of the Bible’s authority (even if not its exclusivity), belief in the transformative power of faith, and dedication to living according to divine rather than merely human standards. Their disagreements were real and significant, but they remained secondary to these primary commitments.
The conversation also illustrated how different personality types and life experiences naturally lead to different approaches to faith. Leonard’s mystical bent attracted him to ongoing revelation, Thomas’s scientific mind sought comprehensive theoretical frameworks, while Susan and Charlie’s pastoral concerns prioritized practical holiness and biblical fidelity. Rather than viewing these differences as threats, the group seemed to appreciate how each perspective contributed something valuable to their collective understanding.
Conclusion: The Ongoing Journey
This Sunday morning discussion encapsulated many of the central tensions in contemporary Christianity: the relationship between reason and revelation, the nature of biblical authority, the possibility of continuing divine communication, and the balance between theological sophistication and practical devotion. Rather than resolving these tensions, the conversation demonstrated how thoughtful Christians can engage them constructively.
The group’s commitment to testing all claims against both reason and scripture, while remaining open to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, provided a model for navigating theological complexity without sacrificing essential Christian convictions. Their willingness to share personal struggles and revelations created space for authentic spiritual dialogue that neither compromised truth nor destroyed fellowship.
Perhaps most importantly, their conversation illustrated that the search for truth—whether scientific, theological, or practical—is best conducted in community. Leonard’s insights from Denver Snuffer, Thomas’s cosmic physics, Susan’s biblical scholarship, and Armond’s practical wisdom each contributed irreplaceable perspectives to their collective understanding. None possessed complete truth individually, but together they moved closer to the full picture of reality that Scripture promises will one day be fully revealed.
In an age of increasing polarization, both religious and secular, this group demonstrated that intellectual honesty, spiritual humility, and genuine love can create space for deep disagreement within authentic fellowship. Their Sunday morning exploration suggests that the path to truth may be less about achieving perfect doctrinal unanimity and more about maintaining faithful community while wrestling with the deepest questions of existence.
The conversation ended with Susan’s prayer of gratitude for their opportunity to “talk together, to talk about your word, to talk about your ways, the things of God,” recognizing that their discussion itself was a form of worship—an offering of their minds and hearts to the God who invites us to “come, let us reason together.” In that spirit of humble inquiry, their theological journey continues, not as isolated individuals but as companions on the ancient path of seeking understanding through faith.