Soft Continuationism
Today truth very often is subjective and relative to a person. “The truth” on the other hand is objective and authoritative no matter who the person. Many times the trajectory from “the truth” to merely “truth” occurs according to an inculcation of a perverted doctrine of the Holy Spirit, especially related either to the meaning of the text of scripture or its application. The shift moves from what the author of the text intended to the perception of the reader. The claimants say this is the Holy Spirit doing this, giving their perception a divine origin.
If someone says, “The Lord spoke to me,” or “The Lord gave me this,” should someone write that down and place that on paper at the end of the book of Revelation? They would answer, “Oh no!” to that. However, with anyone able to come to these impressions of what God says through feelings and personal experiences, what I call a soft continuationism, the authority of actual scripture diminishes or lessens. Someone might claim to believe the Bible, but truth from scripture comes through an apparently living experience of the reader.
Removed from Objective Meaning
Then no one can access objective reality anyway, because everyone is trapped in their own unique perspectives, languages, and culture. This widely accepted viewpoint elevates ambiguity, moving black and white literalism to far less dogmatic spiritual impressions. Two absolutely conflicting sides are just seeing the same passage in different, albeit equally acceptable, ways. Foundational is a skeptical or suspicious view of “the truth” as a mere cold and clinical abstraction, a tool used by and for power.
When a text has an objective meaning, so that it is the truth, this gives power to one person over another. In general, people do not like being told what to do. The egalitarian nature of a toothless text both evens everyone, but it makes most things just preferential and populist. The group tries to find some common denominator in its values through agreement and that becomes God working or the Holy Spirit manifesting himself (or her self or ultimately itself to settle that argument).
When a church agrees that God is still speaking, as affirmed by shared experiences orchestrated by spiritual ecstasy or enthusiasm, what He already said becomes a less viable alternative. Everyone can just make it up as they go along, and give credit to the Holy Spirit as having done that. This makes it convenient and even necessary to refer to truth and not the truth.
Objective Nature of the Text and Relationship
With scripture possessing a known, plain meaning in agreement with a doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration, the truth is locked in the text. God is speaking and so His Words are perspicuous. The goal then is objective, what the authors mean in the first century when they wrote them down. The Bible doesn’t mean anything to me. It means the same thing to everyone. Once a universal text is applied to a specific, private circumstance via a feeling or prompting, it ceases to be a universal grammatical fact and becomes a private interpretation.
Many will question the objective nature of the text of the Bible over the way that affects a personal relationship with God. Can someone have a relationship with God where God no longer speaks in a very personal way? The Bible doesn’t use the word “relationship” or a contemporary concept of that term. The biblical word is “fellowship,” which is different than the popular, modern “relationship. I’m not saying that believers don’t have a relationship with God. They do, but it isn’t like they have a relationship with other people.
Servants of God
The Apostle Paul said he was a servant of Jesus Christ and used the Greek, doulos, as the term translated “servant” in the King James Version and even most modern versions. Doulos means “slave” though. This represents what he said to the Corinthians when he said they were bought with a price so they should glorify God because they are God’s (1 Cor 6:19-20). A believer has mainly a slave relationship with Jesus Christ, where He is their owner and Lord. Paul’s relationship with Jesus was one as a slave. The slave relationship itself, however, was different than the modern perception of slavery.
Jesus told the disciples that His Father loved them like He did Jesus Himself. That is the kind of relationship God has with believers. Believers still see Him, however, as owner and Lord. They read God’s Word, it has one plain meaning, and then they do what He says. It isn’t a matter of finding some subtle, hidden meaning that is unique to the reader. This is a recipe for rebellion and even mutiny.
Various Bad Results
A soft continuationist relationship to truth doesn’t just lead to weak egalitarianism with wish-washy commitment. Another common manifestation is the rise of the small “c” charismatic authoritarian, the one best at manipulating a group. He offers his better way through his superior force of personality and gifts. People like these men (or women) come along to control others, when their followers accede to their subjective insights, spoken with great force and influence. They just accept that he has that special channel to God by which he sees what they cannot.
The text of scripture becomes so fluid and so malleable that it is also opaque in its communication. Followers are more susceptible to the dynamics of a talented man. The end of the world will see that kind of religion in total opposition to God, despite the continued existence of a Bible, which is the truth. Shortly before heaven and earth passes away, His Word will still not have gone off the scene (Matthew 24:35).
Without an objective text of scripture, and, therefore, “the truth,” people are targets or more easily susceptible to spiritual deceit. They don’t have the concrete basis to stand. This means tossing to and fro with every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14). The winds of personal opinion, yet credited to the Holy Spirit, take people off the steadfast, well-lit path of God’s Word.