Renaissance #27: Determining Spiritual Truth

by Thomas Abshier | Oct 25, 2025 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

The Determination of Truth: Navigating Spiritual Authority in an Age of Competing Claims

Renaissance Ministries Meeting #27 reveals the fundamental challenge facing any authentic spiritual community: How does one determine what is true in a world saturated with competing religious authorities, each claiming divine backing for their teachings? This meeting, continuing themes established in previous discussions, exposes the complex dynamics that emerge when sincere seekers attempt to discern between genuine spiritual guidance and sophisticated deception.

The Leonard Paradigm: Sincere Seeking with Divided Loyalties

Leonard Hofheins embodies what might be called the “conscientious seeker with heritage burdens” archetype. His situation illustrates the profound difficulty of breaking free from inherited spiritual frameworks, even when one recognizes their fundamental corruption. Despite his clear-eyed assessment of the LDS Church as apostate—”They don’t believe their own scriptures”—Leonard maintains allegiance to the Book of Mormon and Denver Snuffer’s teachings.

This creates, as Dr. Abshier identifies, the core problem: Leonard does not hold the Bible as his ultimate standard. Instead, he operates from a multi-source approach, treating various texts and modern revelations as equally valid pathways to truth. While this appears intellectually humble, it actually prevents the establishment of any objective standard by which competing claims can be evaluated.

Leonard’s defense reveals the sophistication of this position: “I think the Lord has things to say more than what has been said in the Bible… He will guide us to that word, and he will give us His word too, in our spirit.” This sounds spiritually mature, but it effectively places personal revelation and modern teachers on equal footing with Scripture, creating an interpretive framework where anything can be justified as God’s will.

The Authority Question: Who Speaks for God?

The meeting’s most penetrating moment comes when Dr. Abshier confronts the fundamental authority issue. Leonard’s reliance on Denver Snuffer’s revelations—including specific instructions about women’s roles in priesthood governance—illustrates how quickly personal revelation claims can become new forms of institutional control.

When Leonard describes Snuffer’s teaching about “seven women to approve a man’s priesthood exercise” and “twelve women to remove it,” he reveals how divine revelations from non-biblical sources often include specific organizational details that can serve as the basis for a new doctrine, dogma, sect, or cult. Dr. Abshier’s insight in this regard: “When somebody says, I talked to the Lord, and He told me this… you’ve now created yourself as a guru, a prophet, a speaker of a new divine revelation.”

This exchange highlights a critical principle: The moment anyone claims direct divine communication for doctrinal or organizational purposes, they have established themselves as a religious authority requiring the same scrutiny applied to any other teacher. The packaging may be different—Denver Snuffer says “follow Christ, not me”—but the functional result remains the same: followers must trust his claims about what Christ has told him or risk disobeying what God has revealed as His divine will.

The Taylor Helzer Cautionary Tale

Charlie Gutierrez’s account of Taylor Helzer provides a sobering illustration of where absolute trust in religious authority can lead. Helzer, once an exemplary Mormon who insisted “the Prophet can never lead you astray,” eventually became a serial killer when his faith in church leadership collapsed. His transformation from faithful adherent to murderous apostate demonstrates the psychological fragility that comes from placing ultimate trust in human institutions, prophets, or groups of disciples.

The Helzer story serves multiple purposes in the meeting’s narrative. First, it shows how even the most doctrinally committed can fall into devastating error. Second, it illustrates the instability that comes from having no independent standard by which to judge religious authorities. Third, it warns against the kind of spiritual dependency that makes individuals vulnerable to manipulation by charismatic leaders.

Most significantly, Helzer’s fall occurred not because he rejected Mormon doctrine, but because he accepted it too completely. When church teachings failed to provide the absolute certainty they promised, he didn’t question the system—he concluded that God himself was unreliable. This represents the predictable endpoint of any system that demands absolute trust in fallible human authorities.

The “Smart Sheep” Paradigm

Isaac Gutierrez introduces one of the meeting’s most important concepts when he observes that Christians are called to be sheep—but smart sheep. This insight addresses a fundamental tension in Christian spirituality: believers are commanded to follow their Shepherd while simultaneously being warned against false shepherds who come in sheep’s clothing.

The “smart sheep” concept suggests that discernment is not antithetical to submission but essential to it. True sheep learn to recognize their Shepherd’s voice precisely because they understand the danger of following counterfeits. This requires developing spiritual wisdom that can distinguish between authentic divine guidance and clever human manipulation.

Charlie Gutierrez builds on this theme by noting that God apparently wants believers to struggle with questions of spiritual authority: “I think God wants us to struggle to figure out who are his friends and who are not. Who does he rely on as a prophet?” This perspective frames the difficulty of truth determination not as a flaw in God’s system, but as an intentional test of spiritual maturity.

Personal Experience vs. Objective Standards

Susan Gutierrez’s testimony reveals both the power and the limitations of personal spiritual experience in determining truth. Her vivid descriptions of divine encounters—hearing God’s voice, receiving direct answers to prayer, experiencing supernatural peace—provide compelling evidence that authentic spiritual communication exists. However, her experience also illustrates why personal revelation alone cannot serve as an ultimate standard for communal truth.

Susan wisely subordinates her personal experiences to biblical authority: “Everything our trust has to be in Jesus, first and foremost, before and before anything else, including the Bible. It’s He who helps us interpret the Bible and understand the Bible.” This approach acknowledges the reality of continuing divine communication while maintaining Scripture as the foundational standard by which all other spiritual experiences must be evaluated.

The contrast between Susan’s approach and Leonard’s proves instructive. Both claim personal spiritual guidance, but Susan tests her experiences against biblical teaching while Leonard uses extra-biblical sources to interpret his experiences. This difference in methodology produces dramatically different results in terms of doctrinal stability and spiritual fruit.

The Fruit Test: Pragmatic Truth Verification

Dr. Abshier and Charlie Gutierrez emphasize that truth claims must be evaluated by their practical results. As Charlie notes, “That is the test of truth, that it works… people who live Christian lives, by and large, have happier, longer, more prosperous lives than members of Antifa and the gay community.”

This pragmatic approach provides a helpful corrective to purely intellectual or emotional approaches to truth determination. Authentic spiritual truth should produce observable improvements in character, relationships, and life outcomes. False spiritual systems, regardless of their emotional appeal or intellectual sophistication, ultimately produce destructive fruit in the lives of their adherents.

The meeting participants’ own stories illustrate this principle. Susan’s transformation from militant atheist to joyful believer demonstrates the fruit of an authentic encounter with biblical truth. The Taylor Helzer tragedy shows the devastating fruit that can result from misplaced spiritual trust.

The Biblical Standard Imperative

Throughout the discussion, Dr. Abshier maintains his central thesis: the Bible must serve as the ultimate authority for establishing a universal ethic, epistemology, and ontology upon which world peace, purpose, and prosperity can be built. This position faces challenges from multiple directions—Leonard’s Mormon background predisposes him toward continuing revelation, Isaac’s intellectual honesty makes him reluctant to claim any text as infallible, and even Susan occasionally struggles with difficult biblical passages.

However, the practical necessity of this standard becomes apparent when considering the alternatives. Without a commonly accepted authority, the group becomes merely a collection of individuals sharing personal opinions with no mechanism for resolution when disagreements arise. With multiple competing authorities (Bible + Book of Mormon + Denver Snuffer for Leonard), there is no clear way to adjudicate conflicting claims.

Dr. Abshier’s approach acknowledges that biblical interpretation remains challenging: “I might have to qualify the way it’s interpreted. I might not know how to interpret a passage. I might interpret it wrong, but I know that underneath it is a spirit that is true.” This position maintains biblical authority while admitting human fallibility in understanding—a crucial distinction that prevents the kind of rigid fundamentalism that often characterizes cult thinking.

The Discernment Challenge

The meeting reveals several key principles for truth determination:

• Consistency Testing: Does the teaching align with established biblical truth? Susan’s approach of marking questionable passages and seeking divine interpretation effectively models this principle.
• Authority Analysis: What is the ultimate source of the teaching? Claims to personal revelation must be scrutinized with particular care, as they cannot be externally verified.
• Fruit Examination: What practical results does following this teaching produce? Authentic spiritual truth should generate positive character transformation and life outcomes.
• Historical Verification: How does the teaching relate to historically verified spiritual authorities? The closer the connection to Christ and the apostolic witnesses, the greater the credibility.
• Community Confirmation: How do mature believers evaluate this teaching? While not infallible, the collective wisdom of the spiritually mature provides important safeguards against deception.

The Multiplication Challenge

Dr. Abshier’s concern about scalability—”I can’t spend my entire life doing soul surgery on any one person and save the world also”—highlights a crucial practical issue. If the ministry hopes to impact beyond its immediate circle, it must develop reproducible methods for helping people distinguish between competing spiritual authorities.

The meeting suggests several elements for such a system:

• Clear Standards: Establishing the Bible as the ultimate authority provides an objective reference point for evaluating all other claims.
• Historical Examples: Stories like Taylor Helzer’s provide powerful warnings about the dangers of misplaced spiritual trust.
• Practical Tests: Teaching people to evaluate spiritual fruit provides tools for ongoing discernment.
• Community Support: Creating environments where truth-seeking is encouraged and deception is lovingly confronted helps individuals avoid isolated spiritual decisions.

The Personal Revelation Dilemma

Perhaps the most complex issue raised in the meeting concerns the proper role of personal revelation in Christian life. All participants acknowledge that God continues to communicate with believers, but they disagree about how such communication should be understood and applied.

Susan’s model suggests that personal revelation serves primarily to illuminate biblical truth and guide individual application of scriptural principles. This approach maintains the authority of Scripture while acknowledging the reality of continuing divine guidance.

Leonard’s approach treats personal revelation (whether his own or Denver Snuffer’s) as potentially adding new doctrinal content that may not be found in Scripture. This creates obvious problems for community coherence and doctrinal stability.

The resolution appears to lie in distinguishing between revelatory illumination (helping understand existing truth) and revelatory innovation (claiming to receive new truth). The former strengthens biblical authority while the latter competes with it.

Toward a Biblical Epistemology

The meeting ultimately points toward a biblical approach to truth determination that combines several elements:

• Scriptural Foundation: The Bible serves as the ultimate standard by which all other truth claims are evaluated.
• Spiritual Illumination: The Holy Spirit helps believers understand and apply biblical truth to their specific circumstances.
• Community Discernment: Mature believers help one another avoid deception through loving accountability and shared wisdom.
• Practical Verification: Truth claims are tested by their actual results in the lives of those who embrace them.
• Historical Continuity: New teachings are evaluated based on their consistency with the faith once delivered to the saints.

Conclusion: The Narrow Path of Truth

Renaissance Ministries Meeting #27 illustrates both the necessity and the difficulty of determining truth in a spiritually chaotic age. The participants’ diverse backgrounds and perspectives provide a microcosm of the challenges any group faces when attempting to establish coherent spiritual standards.

The meeting’s most significant insight may be its recognition that truth determination is not a one-time event but an ongoing process that requires constant vigilance, humble dependence on divine guidance, and a commitment to objective standards. The “smart sheep” paradigm captures this balance perfectly—followers must be both submissive and discerning, trusting yet cautious, open to genuine spiritual communication while guarded against clever deception.

Leonard’s situation demonstrates that sincerity alone is insufficient for reliable truth determination. His genuine desire to follow Christ is evident, but his divided loyalties prevent him from experiencing the clarity that comes from a unified commitment to biblical authority. The group’s loving persistence with Leonard models the patience required for effective ministry, while Dr. Abshier’s gentle but firm challenges illustrate the necessity of maintaining doctrinal boundaries.

The ultimate test of Renaissance Ministries’ approach will be its ability to produce mature believers who can navigate spiritual complexity without falling into either gullible acceptance of every spiritual claim or cynical rejection of all supernatural guidance. The biblical standard provides the fixed reference point necessary for such navigation, while community discernment offers protection against both individual error and collective deception.

As the meeting concludes, the participants have not resolved all questions about truth determination, but they have established a framework for ongoing evaluation. This may be the best any spiritual community can achieve—not perfect knowledge, but a reliable process for pursuing truth together under divine guidance.

Renaissance #25, Family Food Choices

by Thomas Abshier | Oct 5, 2025 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

10/5/2025 Meeting Essay

Let me identify the key parts of the conversation that relate to food choices and family:

1. Armond’s main dilemma: He wants his family to follow a no-meat household diet, but his wife is reluctant. This creates division in the household where the children are conflicted between the healthy options he provides and the meat/processed foods she brings home.
2. The various perspectives offered:

• Charlie suggests that food choices are less important than other moral issues like adultery, and that it’s difficult to be a “food Nazi.” He shares that his family went through similar struggles but eventually found peace in “live and let live.”
• Susan emphasizes the importance of both spouses being unified in following Christ first, then working together through prayer and discussion to find agreement on secondary issues like diet.
• Leonard shares how following his wife’s wisdom (regarding moving from California to Utah) saved his daughters, emphasizing the importance of listening to one’s spouse.
• The group discusses the nature of authority in marriage – that it should be exercised through persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, and love rather than force.

3. Key lessons and wisdom shared:

• The importance of prayer together as a couple when facing disagreements
• The principle that the husband should lead through example rather than dictation
• The value of including children in discussions about health and nutrition
• The recognition that some battles aren’t worth fighting if they damage relationships
• The importance of unified spiritual foundation before tackling practical issues

Let me structure this as an essay focusing on these themes and lessons learned.

Navigating Family Food Choices: Wisdom from Scripture and Experience

The challenge of making healthy food choices for a family often extends far beyond simple nutrition decisions. As revealed in a recent Bible study discussion, these choices can become tests of leadership, unity, and wisdom that touch the very heart of family relationships and spiritual growth.

The Central Dilemma: Leadership vs. Unity

The conversation centered around a father’s desire to establish a meat-free household for his family’s long-term health. His motivation was clear and well-intentioned: “The number one killer in America is heart disease… it can only be addressed by your nutritional habits and how you eat and what you eat.” He saw himself implementing preventive measures that would spare his children from facing health crises later in life.

Yet this seemingly straightforward health decision created unexpected division. When the father advocated for fruits and vegetables while processed foods remained available in the refrigerator, he observed his seven-year-old daughter looking over her shoulder “every time she wants to go in the fridge and sneak some french fries and chicken strips.” This dynamic created what he called “a level of division” that was palpable throughout the household.

The Hierarchy of Marital Concerns

The group’s first insight came from recognizing that not all marital disagreements carry equal weight. One participant distinguished between issues that are explicitly addressed in Scripture – such as adultery – and matters of personal preference or conviction. While healthy eating is beneficial, it doesn’t carry the same moral imperative as the Ten Commandments.

This perspective offered a crucial framework: “It’s a difficult position in life to be a food Nazi… but it was a very righteous thing to seek for help to be virtuous.” The distinction helped separate issues of biblical obedience from matters of wisdom and preference, allowing for more measured responses to disagreements.

The Foundation of Christian Unity

The discussion repeatedly returned to the principle that spiritual unity must precede practical harmony. As one participant emphasized, “The number one thing is Jesus. She’s a follower of Jesus. She’s a believer… So that’s the most important thing.”

This foundation provides both perspective and process. When couples share a commitment to following Christ, they have a framework for resolving conflicts through prayer and mutual submission to God’s will. The group highlighted the power of praying together specifically about areas of disagreement: “Please help us solve this or that conflict. Please help us get on the same page on this or that… that has melted conflicts before for us.”

The Nature of Godly Authority

The conversation explored how authority should function within a Christian household. Rather than dictatorial control, biblical authority operates through “persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness and by love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge.” This approach transforms leadership from demanding compliance to inspiring willing cooperation.

The process described involves extensive communication, listening, and prayer before reaching decisions. Authority becomes the final resort, not the first approach: “There’s some kind of agreement formed… it’s not the husband saying, ‘Look, you just have to do this because I say so.'”

The Power of Example Over Compulsion

One of the most practical insights emerged around the principle that “there’s three ways to teach a child: the first is by example, the second is by example, and the third is by example.” This wisdom applied directly to the food situation.

Instead of demanding family compliance, the father could focus on preparing meals he believed were healthy while allowing others to choose what to eat from what was available. This approach maintains his convictions while avoiding the enforcement battles that create resentment and division.

Long-term Perspective and Present Relationships

The father’s concern about preventing future health problems represented admirable long-term thinking. However, the group helped him weigh this against the immediate relational costs of creating ongoing conflict. The question became whether enforcing dietary standards now was worth potentially damaging family relationships, especially when the children had actually responded positively to education about healthy eating.

Remarkably, when the father explained his health concerns to his children, they responded with enthusiasm – even to the point of “crying, pleading with their mother to not eat meat and sugary sweets and cupcakes.” This response suggested that education and persuasion might accomplish more than enforcement.

Practical Wisdom for Implementation

The discussion yielded several practical strategies:

Start with Education: Include all family members in understanding the reasoning behind food choices. When children understand the “why” behind healthy eating, they become allies rather than resistant subjects.

Control What You Can: Since the father did most of the cooking, he could simply prepare the meals he believed were healthiest. Family members could then choose what to eat from the available options.

Seek Outside Resources: The group suggested finding educational materials or professional guidance that both spouses could review together, creating shared understanding rather than one person trying to convince the other.

Model Rather than Mandate: Consistently eating healthy foods while remaining kind and patient with others’ choices often proves more effective than arguments or restrictions.

The Role of Compromise and Grace

The conversation revealed that even deeply committed Christian families struggle with finding balance between convictions and relationships. One couple shared decades of working through food-related disagreements before reaching a peaceful accommodation where they respect each other’s approaches without constant conflict.

This experience suggested that some battles are worth avoiding entirely, focusing energy on more fundamental issues of spiritual growth and family unity. The wisdom of choosing which hills to die on became a central theme.

Addressing Children’s Development

The group recognized that children learn conflict resolution by observing their parents. Rather than hiding disagreements, one father chose to let his children witness respectful discussions and problem-solving processes. This approach teaches valuable life skills while demonstrating healthy relationship dynamics.

The key distinction was maintaining respect and avoiding harmful expressions of conflict while still allowing children to see that disagreement doesn’t mean disrespect or the absence of love.

The Broader Spiritual Framework

Ultimately, the discussion framed food choices within the larger context of spiritual growth and family discipleship. The goal wasn’t merely better nutrition but growing in wisdom, love, and unity as a family. This perspective transformed the food issue from a battle to be won into an opportunity for practicing Christian virtues.

The conversation concluded with recognition that these challenges, while difficult, provide opportunities to develop patience, humility, and sacrificial love. Rather than seeing disagreements as problems to be solved quickly, they can become training grounds for spiritual maturity.

Conclusion: Process Over Outcomes

Perhaps the most profound insight was that how families handle disagreements may be more important than the specific outcomes they reach. A family that learns to pray together, communicate respectfully, consider each other’s perspectives, and make decisions through love and mutual respect will be equipped to handle not only food choices but all the complex challenges of family life.

The food question remained unresolved at the end of the discussion, but the father had gained tools for approaching it differently – through example rather than enforcement, through patience rather than pressure, and through faith that God can work in family relationships when approached with humility and love.

This approach acknowledges that building healthy families requires more than making optimal decisions about individual issues. It requires developing the character, communication skills, and spiritual foundation that enable families to navigate all of life’s challenges while growing closer to God and each other in the process.

Renaissance #24: Faith Under Fire

by Thomas Abshier | Sep 28, 2025 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

This is a transcript of a Bible study group conversation about dealing with stress, spiritual trials, and faith-based responses to overwhelming circumstances. The participants include Thomas Abshier (who seems to be leading the discussion), Charlie Gutierrez (who appears to be going through a stressful situation), Armond Boulware,  and Leonard Hofheins.

The main themes from this conversation are:

1. Dealing with overwhelming stress and circumstances beyond our control
2. The role of action vs. prayer in difficult situations
3. Spiritual turning points and complete surrender to God
4. Different types of prayer – casual vs. desperate crying out to God
5. The physiological and spiritual effects of stress and action
6. Biblical perspectives on authority and spiritual powers
7. The importance of having biblical foundations for decision-making
8. Personal testimonies of God’s intervention in crisis situations

 

Faith Under Fire: Biblical Responses to Overwhelming Stress and Life’s Uncontrollable Circumstances

The conversation among these men of faith reveals profound truths about how believers can navigate the most overwhelming circumstances life presents. Through personal testimonies, biblical reflection, and practical wisdom, they explore the tension between human action and divine sovereignty, offering a framework for maintaining spiritual equilibrium when everything seems to be falling apart.

The Spectrum of Human Suffering

Charlie Gutierrez opens with a sobering reality check about the gradations of human suffering: “There’s different levels of stress. Going bankrupt is pretty stressful, but it’s not as bad as divorce. Divorce is pretty bad, but it’s not as bad as death.” This acknowledgment that suffering exists on a spectrum helps provide perspective while not minimizing genuine pain.

The conversation doesn’t shy away from the most extreme examples. Charlie shares the devastating story of a man who, overwhelmed by legal warfare and family court battles, ultimately took his own life. Leonard describes watching his wife hover at death’s door, powerless to intervene. These aren’t theoretical discussions about stress management—these are testimonies from men who have walked through the valley of the shadow of death and emerged with hard-won wisdom.

The biblical precedent for such suffering is acknowledged through references to Job sitting in ashes and sackcloth, and Isaiah being sawn in half by a wicked king. The conversation establishes that extreme suffering is not an aberration in the Christian life but a documented reality that requires spiritual resources to navigate.

The Imperative of Action in Crisis

A central theme emerges around the necessity of action rather than passive resignation. The apocryphal story of Brigham Young illustrates this perfectly: when asked by fellow missionaries if they should pray while their boat was being swept away by dangerous rapids, Young supposedly replied, “To hell with prayer—row!”

This isn’t irreverence toward prayer but recognition that God often provides solutions through human action rather than supernatural intervention. Thomas explains the physiological basis for this wisdom: stress hormones are “fight or flight hormones” designed to activate us toward action. When we fail to act, these hormones can create cumulative damage, potentially leading to heart disease and other health problems.

The spiritual parallel is equally important. Thomas draws from his physics background to explain that transitions from one stable state to another require intentional reorganization of elements. “Things don’t automatically go to a place of optimal organization,” he observes. “You’ve got to exercise intention. You’ve got to exercise a plan.”

This connects to Charlie’s account of Charlie Kirk’s approach to obstacles: rather than wallowing in self-pity, Kirk would immediately ask, “God sent this problem for us to solve. How can we solve it?” The focus shifts from the problem’s existence to the possibilities for response.

The Distinction Between Types of Prayer

The conversation reveals a crucial distinction between casual, routine prayer and desperate, whole-hearted crying out to God. Leonard’s testimony about his wife’s near-death experience illustrates this difference powerfully. Facing a situation where medical intervention could do little, Leonard spent an entire night on his knees in a hospital chapel.

“It was more than that,” he explains about his prayer experience. “It was my heart, just like, flipped… I just poured it out. I cried.” The scriptures’ references to people who “cry unto the Lord” take on new meaning—this isn’t casual conversation with deity but desperate, complete surrender of the human will to divine providence.

Thomas validates this experience, noting that the miracles he’s witnessed came not from conventional prayers but from desires so intense they seemed to move the hand of God. “That level of intensity of desire that produces miracles… I think that’s what moves the hand of God.”

This challenges believers to examine the authenticity of their prayer life. Are we offering genuine cries from the heart, or merely going through religious motions?

Spiritual Turning Points and Divine Transformation

Leonard’s testimony provides a powerful example of what he calls a “turning point”—a moment when circumstances force a fundamental reorientation of life priorities. Before his wife’s crisis, he was “all into me and being a designer and doing all this stuff.” He had a good life but lacked a spiritual center.

The crisis forced him to confront his own powerlessness and recognize his need for divine intervention. Like Moses confronted with God’s presence on Sinai, Leonard realized “I’m nothing” and that he needed help beyond human capacity.

This connects to the broader theme that God sometimes uses desperate circumstances to accomplish spiritual transformation that wouldn’t occur through comfortable circumstances. The conversation suggests that such turning points are available to everyone—the question is whether we learn “by precept” (through teaching) or “by sad experience” (through crisis).

The Role of Biblical Grounding in Crisis Response

Armond’s contributions emphasize the importance of being established in God’s word before crisis hits. His quote from Proverbs—”Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established”—provides the foundation for wise decision-making under pressure.

Charlie reinforces this, noting that you must be “in the habit of problem solving with God on your side” to recognize divine guidance when it comes. Without this foundation, “he could suggest ideas till kingdom come, and you might not even recognize them.”

This highlights the importance of spiritual preparation during calm seasons. Crisis is not the time to begin developing biblical literacy or spiritual discernment—these resources must be cultivated beforehand to be available when needed.

Navigating Competing Authorities

Armond’s exposition of Romans 13 and Ephesians 6:12 addresses a crucial issue for believers: how to respond to earthly authorities while maintaining allegiance to divine authority. His insight that there are both “higher powers” and “lower powers” provides a framework for evaluating competing claims to authority.

The text commands submission to “higher powers” while acknowledging that we “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.” This suggests that not all authority is worthy of submission—believers must discern which powers represent divine authority and which represent spiritual opposition.

This becomes particularly relevant when government or other institutions demand actions that conflict with biblical principles. The conversation suggests that wholesale submission to authority is not biblical—rather, believers must discern which authorities represent higher powers worthy of submission and which represent lower powers to be resisted.

The Limits of Human Control and the Peace of Surrender

A recurring theme involves accepting the limitations of human control while taking appropriate action within our sphere of influence. Thomas and Isaac’s conversation (referenced but not fully detailed here) apparently concluded that regarding certain stressful situations, “there literally was nothing you could do” about the actual problem.

This doesn’t lead to fatalism but to redirected energy: “We can work. We can actually do something regarding maintaining our own lives. We can support the things that are actually in front of us that need to be done in our lives.”

This wisdom helps believers avoid the trap of worrying about circumstances beyond their control while neglecting responsibilities within their influence. It provides a framework for mental and spiritual health during extended periods of trial.

The Physiology of Faith and Action

Thomas’s insights about stress hormones provide a scientific foundation for biblical wisdom about action. The body’s stress response is designed to activate us toward fight or flight—doing something in response to threat. When we remain passive under stress, these hormones can cause physical damage.

This suggests that spiritual passivity during trial may not only be emotionally unhealthy but physically damaging. The biblical call to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” takes on new meaning when understood as activation of both spiritual and physical systems toward appropriate response.

The conversation implies that proper spiritual response to stress involves both surrendering outcomes to God and taking vigorous action within our sphere of responsibility. This both honors God’s sovereignty and utilizes the physiological systems He designed for crisis response.

Practical Applications for Believers

Several practical principles emerge from this discussion:

Preparation During Peace: Develop biblical literacy, prayer habits, and spiritual discernment during calm seasons, not during crisis.

Action Over Paralysis: When facing overwhelming circumstances, identify what actions are possible and take them vigorously, even while surrendering ultimate outcomes to God.

Authentic Prayer: Move beyond routine religious expressions to genuine crying out to God when circumstances warrant desperate appeal.

Discerning Authority: Evaluate competing claims to authority by biblical standards rather than automatically submitting to whoever claims power.

Focused Energy: Concentrate effort on responsibilities within your control rather than consuming energy worrying about circumstances beyond your influence.

Community Support: Engage in “revelation by conversation” with other believers who can provide perspective, accountability, and mutual support during trials.

The Ultimate Hope: Divine Intervention Through Human Means

The conversation concludes with recognition that God typically works through human means rather than superseding them. Leonard’s wife was saved through both divine intervention and medical treatment. Charlie Kirk’s obstacles were overcome through both faith and strategic action. The biblical heroes referenced faced their trials through combination of divine grace and human courage.

This provides hope without false expectations. Believers can expect God to work but should anticipate that such work will likely occur through natural means rather than supernatural suspension of normal causation. This requires both faith to believe in divine involvement and wisdom to recognize and cooperate with divine action when it occurs.

The conversation ultimately points toward a mature faith that neither demands miraculous exemption from life’s hardships nor despairs when such hardships arise. Instead, it offers a framework for engaging difficulties with both spiritual resources and practical action, trusting that God is sovereign over outcomes while remaining faithful in our assigned responsibilities.

This balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility provides a sustainable approach to life’s inevitable challenges, allowing believers to maintain both spiritual equilibrium and practical effectiveness regardless of circumstances.

Renaissance Meeting #19 – Continuing Revelation

by Thomas Abshier | Sep 11, 2025 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

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.