# Just How Certain Can You Really Be ... ?



## The Foreigner (Oct 11, 2011)

Sometimes in a slow moment I find myself flicking through old threads on the forum. I keep coming across a recurring theme in some of the comments. 

Its the idea that we can't be certain about some fundamental things: sometimes it's our faith; perhaps many doctrines within the faith; we are asked can we critique others' faith legitimately when they do the same to us?; can we critique unbelievers legitimately when they critique us in like manner?   

What this line of questioning speaks of is the incipient relativism that has blighted the church for a number of years now. The thinking of the world, the skepticism or rationalism of the unbelieving mind has so polluted the church that all too often we seem to be arguing like unbelievers.

I'm not speaking of being certain on every last jot of doctrine in a prideful manner. But I would posit, that if we are to know anything properly, we must know and acknowledge God first. He must be the presupposition of all things, because he is almighty, sovereign and all knowing - he is the great "I Am" afterall.  Is God a logical conclusion or is he a necessary presupposition?

If we don't have God at the centre of our lives, then why would we take his Word seriously. For me, the issue is resolved by authority. Is God the ultimate authority or just one of a number of competing authorities? Is his Word authoritative. (I'm really speaking to believers, who have the Spirit's work in their lives here).

So ... the "that's just your interpretation" argument falls flat at this point - someone is right and someone is wrong, or both are wrong, but two different interpretations of Scripture can not both be right!   If we are open to the Spirit's working we should come to the sure and certain truth at some point.

For Example: If Christ says "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except by me" - it stands to reason that there can not be more than one way. He is arguing for the exclusivity of himself as the Way. There are some things (not the hidden Deut 29 things) that we can be certain of.  Our doctrine must by biblically and logically consistent - (biblically first then logically - do it the other way around and you are in a mess!!!)

I guess this is more of an appeal than anything: let us sound MORE certain about the basics not LESS certain.

With that in mind - let me throw this out there: 

a. Are you certain of your faith and the facts/doctrines thereof?
b. How are you certain?

Peace.

PS I'm not looking for a fight here - this is genuine interest in the subject.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 11, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> a. Are you certain of your faith and the facts/doctrines thereof?



Yes



The Foreigner said:


> b. How are you certain?



I trust in a sovereign God and an effectual Redeemer. I am right where I am suppose to be at this point in time, as we all are, some of us in our rebellion.


----------



## CAL (Oct 11, 2011)

I am certain of my Faith and facts.I have experienced the presence of the Comforter,the Holy Spirit.I have seen the results of Prayer when all other information based on previous facts was negative.Only Prayer could and did change things.I previously had the Faith but now I have the Faith supported by the facts.


----------



## thedeacon (Oct 11, 2011)

Over the years I have found that I have had to change my mind on certein issue's, that could happen in the future. 

I try to keep an open mind, not to the religious public but to God and the Holy Spirit. We must pray daily or maybe more often than that for Gods guidence and truly trust in him.

We can't pray for God to show us the way and then choose our own.

God Bless


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 11, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> So ... the "that's just your interpretation" argument falls flat at this point - someone is right and someone is wrong, or both are wrong, but two different interpretations of Scripture can not both be right!   If we are open to the Spirit's working we should come to the sure and certain truth at some point.



I could be certain that something is true, but you would adamantly disagree.  Take the divorce thread, I would venture to say both sides would argue they have "truth."  Who has the right to impose their interpretation where scripture is ambiguous?  What if we all find out that we were wrong, and have actually done damage in the name of God?  Are we then on the side of evil?

This is my hesitance to impose my "truth" on others.  There is humility involved in being a Christian.  To claim "truth" we must be certain, or we risk playing for the wrong team mistakenly.  I would rather stick with what is clear: grace and redemption.

These are my thoughts, and why I come across as morally ambiguous.  It is not because I do not see truth, it is because I have seen an awful lot of wrong-headed stuff done in the name of God.  

A good example: growing up, I was taught that inter racial relationships were against the Bible.  Then, one day, I read Song of Solomon and realized it was an inter racial couple.  How many people had been hurt by the Church's stance based on the OT's description of the events at the tower of Babel?  Very many.  I could go on, but I think that sums up my thoughts on this subject.




The Foreigner said:


> For Example: If Christ says "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except by me" - it stands to reason that there can not be more than one way. He is arguing for the exclusivity of himself as the Way. There are some things (not the hidden Deut 29 things) that we can be certain of.  Our doctrine must by biblically and logically consistent - (biblically first then logically - do it the other way around and you are in a mess!!!)



I would agree, but look at the baptism thread, and see how many different ways Christians see us coming to God through Jesus. Baptism? Predestination? Sprinkling? The Romans Road?  Etc. And, lets consider the possibilities of how somebody can come to the father through Jesus, is there provision outside what we know?  We always argue we don't know everything, but we tend to say we are certain about this.

Good discussion!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 11, 2011)

Yes I am certain. But not in the minor things. Many things that are debated are not important.

Because I quit listening to what others had to say and searched out the answers for myself


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 11, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Yes I am certain. But not in the minor things. Many things that are debated are not important.



Me, too...I'm sure! I'm not sure that everything I say is correct, but I'm sure my salvation is nailed down.

And you're right many things that are debated are not important if you're saved. But could be important if you're not. That's why I'm mouthy.....lol! For those who may be on the fence.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 11, 2011)

Being skeptical and rational "pollutes" the church!?


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 12, 2011)

Any business about having 'faith' in my own 'faith', well, I just don't go there much anymore. And maybe the original question wasn't actually saying that, sorry if I'm reading it "off".
I'm happy when God allows me to consider myself dead from sin and alive to Christ, by the faith He gives.  The cross leads me daily to surrender and total dependency, and I'm good with that.  Lately, the dependency on His work is all I got in my past few days of weakness (health).  I'm good with that, too!
Sorry, not sure if I answered your question, that's what comes to me.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Oct 12, 2011)

Your point is well taken. I'd agree especially when the exchange is between "believers". The rub comes when those who often seem most willing to foray into such discussions label themselves as Christ's but either they are that in title only, or lack "fruit" which rapidly becomes apparent as the discussion unwinds. I've learned such "discussions" are often best left for a "face to face" encounter where the "Word of God" can be injected to guide the erring in the "Way". As amazing as technology has become, and as small as it seems to make this earth; at times, it also suffers limitations.  I'm old enough to remember when few had telephones, and nobody had cell phones. It once was if a neighbor had a problem with a neighbor, they sat down together and discussed it as adults, parting as friends. Today, especially women,[this is not an attack on the fairer sex, but an honest observation], in a heated moment much prefer to hop on a phone or go on-line to deliver a scalding diatribe that the receiver likely won't forget should they live another half century. Perhaps my view here is tainted because as an active law enforcement officer I respond weekly to such calls where the recipient has recorded, or printed the message delivered which often ends up as evidence in a coming trial. Christ cautioned the desciples against "casting their pearls before swine, lest they turn and rend you." I fear we often accomplish that with the best of intentions. I will be the first to diligently repond to one who is sincerely seeking an answer. That generaly can produce pleasant results. It is difficult to determine the "motive" behind some interrogatories, at least innitially. It appears some outside the household of faith delight in "stirring strife." I'll remind you of of the seven things the Lord hates is "those that sew discord among the brethren." There are some folks you can't help simply because help is not what they seek. May our Lord grant us wisdom to know when to bear witness of him, and when to sit quietly and allow the Holy Spirit to do the office work in the heart of the wayward.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> I could be certain that something is true, but you would adamantly disagree. Take the divorce thread, I would venture to say both sides would argue they have "truth."



But, as he pointed out, only one is right...right?



> This is my hesitance to impose my "truth" on others.



I think this is where I see you missing the boat JB...honestly.  This is a good example of where you and I disagree most of the time.  It's not "your truth".  There are not versions of truth.  Truth is truth.  God is Truth and his word is true.  

I understand where you're coming from.  We may all read passages differently.  But in the end, one is reading what he wants it to say and the other is looking for the truth in the text (not making a judgement on discussions you and I have had around here with that comment) and it is always good to be influenced by other believers who you know you can trust and who have proven themselves wise through time....even if they conflict with something you believe at the moment.



> I would rather stick with what is clear: grace and redemption.



But you seemingly override judgment and wrath with grace at every turn.  God has lots of attributes and, contrary to what you might think, I am a big fan of the grace and mercy.  But he is also jealous and the righteous judge and he will punish as well.

If fact, if you go back to the beginning, had God not allowed for the tree of knowledge, he wouldn't have been able to display his glory fully.  He would not have been able to display grace or mercy to humanity...they wouldn't have needed it.  Neither would he have been able to display righteous judgement.

Grace and mercy are not all that can be definitively known about God...and sometimes he does things that don't "feel" fair.


----------



## pbradley (Oct 12, 2011)

Certain enough and comfortable enough with that certainty that I'm betting eternity on it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 12, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> a. Are you certain of your faith and the facts/doctrines thereof?
> b. How are you certain?



a. Yes.
b. Through the study of God's Word


I'll go on to say, if you don't believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, I don't think your faith can be strong/certain.



JB0704 said:


> These are my thoughts, and why I come across as morally ambiguous.  It is not because I do not see truth, it is because I have seen an awful lot of wrong-headed stuff done in the name of God.



Don't mix the teachings of man with the teachings of God.  There have and always will be many false teachers.  That is why we must study the Word of God and ensure all teaching/preaching lines up with God's Word.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> But, as he pointed out, only one is right...right?



What then, when both believe they got it?



Huntinfool said:


> I think this is where I see you missing the boat JB...honestly.  This is a good example of where you and I disagree most of the time.  It's not "your truth".  There are not versions of truth.  Truth is truth.  God is Truth and his word is true.


 
I never argued that truth wasn't truth.  Because I disagree, you read ambiguity, and that is where I see you missing the boat.  My point is that folks are wrong.....all the time.  I know people who will argue till they are blue in the face that there is a "clear" and implicit case for a "head pastor" running the local church.  I do not see that as true.  What do we do, then? Who has "truth?" 



Huntinfool said:


> But in the end, one is reading what he wants it to say and the other is looking for the truth in the text (not making a judgement on discussions you and I have had around here with that comment) and it is always good to be influenced by other believers who you know you can trust and who have proven themselves wise through time....even if they conflict with something you believe at the moment.



Two thoughts, first is that I grew up around a lot of folks who saw the world in black and white.  Lots of "God's sendin' 'em all to he11" type folks.  As I began searching for "truth," I discovered many positions to be the result of what those people wanted them to be.  I gave one example in my initial response (inter racial dating).  Again, there are many others.  I assure you, there is nothing more disgusting than evil attributed to God, and I have seen it.  So, to avoid allowing my bias to place me on the side of evil, I take a stand for grace.  There are many positions which you would be surprised I hold personally, but refuse to force them on others. 

My second thought is this:  am I not discussing my faith with other believers on this forum every day?  

Another thought, I always raise my eyebrows when somebody accuses a person who asks questions of causing "dissention."  That is a way of stifling growth, and discussion.  Perhaps all sides can learn a little. I do.  We quit learning when we have all the answers....think about it.




Huntinfool said:


> But you seemingly override judgment and wrath with grace at every turn.  God has lots of attributes and, contrary to what you might think, I am a big fan of the grace and mercy.  But he is also jealous and the righteous judge and he will punish as well.



I mean this sincerely HF, I firmly believe Jesus' sacrifice over rides judgement and wrath for those who accept him.  That is the logic behind every position I take.  Judgement and wrath (read condemnation) do not exist for the redeemed.  And I believe redemption is available to all who accept it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> What then, when both believe they got it?



One didn't.



> Judgement and wrath (read condemnation) do not exist for the redeemed. And I believe redemption is available to all who accept it.



Judgement does exist for the redeemed.  

I suppose my issue is that you seem to allow your concept of "grace" to override scriptural authority sometimes.  What I mean is that I've heard you say many times something to this effect "I know what the Bible says there...but it doesn't make sense to me in light of grace and a loving God."  Obviously not word for word.  But that's what I read in many of your posts and that is where I take issue sometimes.  

Grace covers all sin.  But, as Paul tells us, we shall not go on sinning so that grace should abound (and no I'm not saying that you advocate continual sin...what I'm saying is that you seem to not consider certain things offensive to God because they don't make sense to you in light of grace).


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Don't mix the teachings of man with the teachings of God.  There have and always will be many false teachers.  That is why we must study the Word of God and ensure all teaching/preaching lines up with God's Word.



Oh, believe me, I try not to, and get clobbered in here daily for it.

Like I told HF, when we have all the answers, we quit learning.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> One didn't.



That doesn't answer the question.  Did you read my entire post?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

yes...and I adjusted my post to respond to a couple of other things.  

I was just jabbing at you a little with that short post.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Judgement does exist for the redeemed.



Redeemed go to he11?




Huntinfool said:


> I suppose my issue is that you seem to allow your concept of "grace" to override scriptural authority sometimes.  What I mean is that I've heard you say many times something to this effect "I know what the Bible says there...but it doesn't make sense to me in light of grace and a loving God."  Obviously not word for word.  But that's what I read in many of your posts and that is where I take issue sometimes.



It would make things a lot easier if you would stop trying to read my mind and actually read my posts.  The "truth" is that grace exists, and is greater than sin, and covers all sin if we accept it.  For me, the logical conclusion is that grace should be the focus of faith, not condemnation.  It's not that I disagree with all of your positions, it's that I think we forget the cross when "judging" others.  That is what is important, for me, that is what I read as "truth."

Again, I have seen a lot of evil done in the name of God in my life.  I want no part of that.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> yes...and I adjusted my post to respond to a couple of other things.
> 
> I was just jabbing at you a little with that short post.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> Redeemed go to he11?



Nope


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Nope



If you read my comments, I put "(read condemnation)" there.  Again, it would be helpful if you actually read what I write.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> It would make things a lot easier if you would stop trying to read my mind and actually read my posts.



I read them and then tell you how they come across.

I don't have the time to go back and look at all the posts.  But you've posted something very similar to what I wrote several times.

"I can't believe that a loving and merciful God would condemn me for..." written in the context of scripture showing you the contrary position.

I do recall several in the divorce thread.  One said something like "Maybe divorce is God's assistance to those who are suffering. 
".


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 12, 2011)

Interesting thread... more than anything else (IMO), the reasons people get off track coming to a knowledge of truth regarding many biblical fall into two categories.

First, people today want to rely on personal experience instead of relying on the written word.  When we begin to claim "God leads us to truth independent of the written word," there are going to be many deviations and contradictory stances people adopt.  I'm not saying God doesn't providentially lead us in life... He does.  I am saying, however, that truth originates in His word... not when we experience something.

Second, there are simply many who do not want to submit to the leadership of Christ in their lives.  Submission is not easy... it will always be easier to find an excuse or a way to explain something away than it will be to obey something we don't like doing.  Sooo often today, people try to press many definitions/ideas into some passages of Scripture that simply are not there... and that's often seen in moral arguments or points of Christian doctrine that are ingrained in certain religious groups.

Third, and maybe most importantly, how one views the Bible is a huge issue.  If we want a complete picture of any biblical topic, it is necessary for us to go beyond what one passage says - and see what the entire New Testament says about it.  A cardinal rule is "the Bible will not contradict itself."  Thus, when it seems as if it does, dig until you find a possible answer... often found when "context" is considered.  A good example of this can be found in Christ's words in John 12:47 and Matthew 10:34.

An example of this last idea is grace... a topic that's discussed in earlier posts.  Some may look at one passage or another to assert the belief that grace allows people to live as they wish... or avoid judgment.  Yet, the issue was addressed in Romans 6:1-4 and by Jesus in Matthew 23:23, when He linked the ideas of mercy, faith, AND justice together.  These, IMO, are some ideas that really are harmful to "getting on the same page."


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> If you read my comments, I put "(read condemnation)" there. Again, it would be helpful if you actually read what I write.




I did read it.  I just read that as "judgement and wrath (read condmenation)" meaning "Judgement" and "wrath"....read condemnation when you read wrath.

Perhaps, even though we both have opinions on the text, my interpretation is not the truth of what was written?  Or maybe I was just reading what I wanted to read into the text? 



Oh man!  I gotta give myself an air high five on that one!  Way to go HF!


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I do recall several in the divorce thread.  One said something like "Maybe divorce is God's assistance to those who are suffering.
> ".



I recall something similar there, and God did provide an "out."  I think there was an awful lot of context to be taken into consideration with that one.

Not sure what the "loving and merciful" statement was in reference to.  I would like to see it before I comment on it.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I did read it.  I just read that as "judgement and wrath (read condmenation)" meaning "Judgement" and "wrath"....read condemnation when you read wrath.
> 
> Perhaps, even though we both have opinions on the text, my interpretation is not the truth of what was written?  Or maybe I was just reading what I wanted to read into the text?
> 
> ...



HF, maybe I am slow, but that made absolutely no sense.   Judgement, from God, is manifested through condemnation for those who reject Christ.  That is what I was saying.

What in the world are you high fiving?  I get that you are trying to be difficult, but am confused as to what was so profound?

Your problem is that you think you know what other people are thinking.  You have been wrong, but never in doubt.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> Some may look at one passage or another to assert the belief that grace allows people to live as they wish... ."



I never claimed that.  Only that grace covers sin when accepted (which includes repentance).



Bama4me said:


> or avoid judgment.



Absolutely.  We are forgiven.  By grace we are saved through faith.



Bama4me said:


> Yet, the issue was addressed in Romans 6:1-4 and by Jesus in Matthew 23:23, when He linked the ideas of mercy, faith, AND justice together.  These, IMO, are some ideas that really are harmful to "getting on the same page."



What do you mean by "getting on the same page?"  I am a bit confused about what you are saying here.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I read them and then tell you how they come across.....



....to you, because you know what everybody thinks.  Just stick with the text man.  What things "seem" are often not what they are.

A good example is all of you thinking I was attacking preachers the other day.  It was not the case.  You kept saying "but you said but," when all the "but" said was that folks should do the job they are hired to do, which is true in every occupation, The details of when that includes vary from job to job, same with preachers.  It had nothing to do with my individual responsibility, and I made that clear multiple times. 

I would encourage you to re-read the "deal with the devil" thread, and you will see how ridiculous the conversation got.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> Just stick with the text man.



You don't see the irony in this statement at all given what you've posted (i.e. grey areas and everybody has their own interpretation, etc)?

and you don't see any humor in this at all?



> Perhaps, even though we both have opinions on the text, my interpretation is not the truth of what was written? Or maybe I was just reading what I wanted to read into the text?



Come on.  You want me to believe that we can't know the "right way" to interpret a passage of scripture.  But you want me to read the text of your posts "the right way".  You don't see the irony in that at all?



Trust me man...if I thought I knew what people were thinking, my wife and I would get along a LOT better!  She wants me to read her mind constantly...and I can't.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You don't see the irony in this statement at all given what you've posted (i.e. grey areas and everybody has their own interpretation, etc)?



But you are constanlty interpretting my comments incorrectly, then telling me what I was saying.  I think that is the irony.

Again, as with the Bible, there was an intent, and it takes a lot of confidence to say you have it.  Often, people are very, very wrong.  I tend to avoid making bold claims where there is doubt.  I have seen folks like you hurt a lot of people, and drive even more away with their "I have the truth" stances.  I have given repeated examples.

Again, how often are folks on the side of evil while trying to be righteous?  How many of the church's stances have been wrong over the years?  How many of the people who took those stances claimed "truth?"

It's worth asking.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> But you are constanlty interpretting my comments incorrectly.



To quote JB..."that's your opinion".  You've either missed the point entirely or you're just refusing to acknowledge it.

You are telling me that I'm "reading the text wrong" and then chastizing me for telling you that there is a right way to "read the text" of scripture and that it can be known.  




> Again, how often are folks on the side of evil while trying to be righteous? How many of the church's stances have been wrong over the years? How many of the people who took those stances claimed "truth?"



A bunch in both cases.  That's why it's important to fellowship with other believers and "test" their wisdom and understanding against scripture.  Then talk through these tough issues with them and test your understanding against the already proven wisdom of others.  Sometimes you find you are out of line with what wise people believe the truest interpretation on a matter.

I have never advocated just blindly believing anything you hear shouted from a pulpit.  I have also never accepted the "well just read it for yourself and decided what it means 'for you'" mentality.  It lead to a very mushy, self-focussed view of the Word of God IMO.  

Religious humanism says truth is only true if it's true "for you".  The only truth is what's true for you.  So read the Bible and pull the "truth for you" out of each passage.  It's steadily creaping into the body of believers.





(BTW...the high five was for a perfect re-direction and slam dunk on a point...it was a good one.)


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> To quote JB..."that's your opinion".  You've either missed the point entirely or you're just refusing to acknowledge it.



That's my opinion of your interpretation of my comments?  Are you honestly saying you know my intent better than me?  I can't speak with authority as to the intent of the author of the Bible, but I am the authority on the intent of my comments.  Hopefully, you can see that and why your point is not valid.



Huntinfool said:


> Humanism says truth is only true if it's true "for you".  The only truth is what's true for you.  So read the Bible and pull the "truth for you" out of each passage.



I have never claimed truth to be relative, from an absolute sense.  I have claimed, repeatedly, that folks' interpretation injects bias into their "truth."  When I say "that's your interpretation" it is only to point out the possibility that you might be incorrect.  If you might be incorrect, you are on tricky ground claiming truth, because you might be playing for the wrong team and not knowing it.

I am a primary example of what I am discussing. I have seen where folks proclaim "truth" in the grey areas, and hurt people in the process.  It's just dangerous, man.  I am lucky.  I was able to see a very different savior than what I was taught.  You see, the God of judgement and wrath was all I ever heard growing up.  Just like you like to proclaim, HF.  God will judge us, right?  

God will also forgive, regardless of the offense.  That is what is important ot the end result.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> (BTW...the high five was for a perfect re-direction and slam dunk on a point...it was a good one.)



Again, HF, I am not too proud to say that I have no idea what you are talking about.

But, hey, keep patting yourself on the back.   You did a good thing......


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> "I can't believe that a loving and merciful God would condemn me for..." written in the context of scripture showing you the contrary position.



I think you are referring to this thread:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=644857&page=2

I would encourage you to go back and re-read my comments, and leave your interpretation out of it.  You will see that I asked an awful lot of questions, but never made any assertions.

I think you have even said it's ok to ask questions, right? Pay lose attention to my last sentence on posts #130 and #137.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> I am a primary example of what I am discussing. I have seen where folks proclaim "truth" in the grey areas, and hurt people in the process. It's just dangerous, man. I am lucky. I was able to see a very different savior than what I was taught. You see, the God of judgement and wrath was all I ever heard growing up. Just like you like to proclaim, HF. God will judge us, right?



So...forgive me.  Here I go reading into your comments.  

It's better to not take a firm stand in a "grey" area, because you MIGHT be wrong?  



> Just like you like to proclaim, HF. God will judge us, right?



You got it brother...but not for the purpose of salvation.  But make no mistake JB, you will stand before the judgment seat of God regardless of your eternal destination.  Not a "grey" area.

_For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,
 	“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
		and every tongue shall confess to God.”
 	So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
(Romans 14:10-12 ESV)_

_	For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
(Matthew 7:2 ESV)_


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> I would encourage you to go back and re-read my comments, and leave your interpretation out of it. You will see that I asked an awful lot of questions, but never made any assertions.



If you want people to read what you post, not interpret and not react to what they think you are saying, you are in the wrong place.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> If you want people to read what you post, not interpret and not react to what they think you are saying, you are in the wrong place.



OK. so, you are defending your tendency to see what you want to see, regardless of what the post actually says?

And then, you want me to "take your word for it" when it comes to the Bible???


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

No, I'm telling you that when you post something, I'm not always going to read it the way you intended it to read.  It's the nature of the internet.

I'm going to react to what I read, then you can clarify, then we'll keep talking.  

But continuing to say "just read my post" is not going to get us anywhere.  It's not just me that reads your posts differently than you intended.  Why do you think you got such overwhelming harsh reaction to what you posted about pastors "just doing their jobs"?

I don't think you are as clear as you think you are when you post comments my friend.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> So...forgive me.  Here I go reading into your comments.
> 
> It's better to not take a firm stand in a "grey" area, because you MIGHT be wrong?



Why take a firm stand on something you are unsure of?  Would be kind-of silly wouldn't it?  I say we should take a stand on the gospel.  Not sure what the point is otherwise.

And, here is the bigger point, and the part you overlook:  what works in Christian circles, what gets you slapped on the back in church, might be that which drives your neighbor away from God.  I have known a ton of people driven away from God by people taking "firm stands."  We have discussed a few of them in other threads.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't think you are as clear as you think you are when you post comments my friend.



No, you skim with a preconcieved notion.

Again, how many times did I say I understood individual responsibility in the "deal with the devil" thread before you quit pointing out to me that I have an individual responsibility?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> you posted about pastors "just doing their jobs"?



Not sure.  I never said that.  Go back and read, it is not there.  You just made my point for me.

I said "if you get paid to do something, you should probably do it."


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

Is truth sometimes offensive?


Does truth sometimes hurt feelings?


If what someone is living or doing is out of line with scripture, pointing it out (even lovingly) is going to be "offensive" in the sense that offense will be taken.  

People leave churches for all kinds of reasons.  Most of them are not valid.  The pastor preaches about money "too much".  I don't like the color of the new carpet.  I don't have a say in where my money goes.  The pastor said she looked "great" and that I looked "nice"......"somebody confronted me about my behavior..."


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> No, you skim with a preconcieved notion.



Soooo...





> Are you honestly saying you know my intent better than me?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 12, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> Sometimes in a slow moment I find myself flicking through old threads on the forum. I keep coming across a recurring theme in some of the comments.
> 
> Its the idea that we can't be certain about some fundamental things: sometimes it's our faith; perhaps many doctrines within the faith; we are asked can we critique others' faith legitimately when they do the same to us?; can we critique unbelievers legitimately when they critique us in like manner?
> 
> ...



I am certain fo my faith because the "facts" and "doctrines" evolve as the church evolves through the Holy Spirit. What was a given as " Only true Christ" does not follow that our general  understanding is the end of it. The ministry of Christ is on going and so is the ministry of the Holy Spirit... 

What was "through Christ" for my great, great, great grandmother in the Herberdies 300yrs ago does not follow that is the same "through Christ" that is thought today in the seminaries or by the Holy Spirit in the heart of someone in prayer.

For many "through Christ" means the Christianity of the former pagans, our ancestors...and as we all know Christianity is much more...

I personally think that in two or three hundred yrs our future relatives will see our times as a spiritual middle age, where christians saved for their acceptance of Christ, The Sinners, could still kill and torture like their pagan ancestors and see it as justified by scripture, which scripture was the anchor to their faith and for them the word of God which told them it was just to kill each other and torture their enemies and they did as God told them.

The God at the center of my life is not the one most of my generation find in scripture because what they find is a beginning and an end and nothing inbetween. For me just one second with God inbetween is our eternity and it is through this one second Christ that man will be saved.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Is truth sometimes offensive?
> 
> 
> Does truth sometimes hurt feelings?
> ...



Cool.  You keep up with your "firm stands."  I am sure your chariot is on the way.

Gentle stands often get the job done, and with a lot less damage.  I will stick with that, and wait here with the rest of the heathens.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> Not sure. I never said that. Go back and read, it is not there. You just made my point for me.
> 
> I said "if you get paid to do something, you should probably do it."



So, then, your big issue is that I don't take the time to go quote literally word for word what you post?  That's what's bothering you?

It must be a very lonely view seeing all those trees and not being able to see the forest around you JB.

The point was (whatever you posted), that you got a BUNCH of push-back on what you posted....because it was apparently not as clear as you thought it was.  It wasn't just me who commented regarding that post.

Many people felt there was a pretty clear message behind that post that it was the pastor's job...not yours.  If that's not what you intended, then obviously what you posted was not as clear as you meant it to be.


----------



## Nicodemus (Oct 12, 2011)

I`m very sure of my faith, and don`t need anybody to tell me, or question me on it. Good thing I`m sure of it too. Some of these Christians, especially those that think they know it all, probably have no idea of the damage they have wrought, with their holier-that-thou ways, or how many they have turned away because of these ways.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

I just re-read the thread HF, I would encourage you to do the same.

It was absolutely comical how much push back I got, when folks clearly were not reading what I wrote.  I even segregated things out in the 1, 2, 3, 4, form, and nobody read it.

I feel no blame for that one.  

This is my whole point!!!  Everybody sees what they want to see.  You are making every case I have ever argued for on here, and don't even realize it.

The trees and forest, give me a break dude.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> Gentle stands often get the job done, and with a lot less damage. I will stick with that, and wait here with the rest of the heathens.



You just said you haven't made any assertions.  

It's not possible to take a "gentle stand" on something.  A stand is an aggressively held position on an issue.  When you take a stand, you will not be moved.

You can take a stand and lovingly communicate it, which is what we should always do.  But you cannot gently stand for something.  You believe it or you do not.  

I've never called you a heathen.  Now you are reading into what I write.


----------



## Razorhead (Oct 12, 2011)

I am sure because of Gods word that shows me all the proof I need. Satan will cause doubt to come to everyone his intent is to make you insecure about your faith. Satan tells us there is nothing to the bible, God, Jesus and so on. Faith in Christ tells us there is nothing to Satan but lies...


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> This is my whole point!!! Everybody sees what they want to see. You are making every case I have ever argued for on here, and don't even realize it.



I know.  Hilarious isn't it?  You were right all along!  My eyes have been opened.


When a bunch of people all read the same message from a post...it's likely that the message was there whether the OP will admit it or not.

I know...I know...just read my posts.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 12, 2011)

DING... DING.....DING

Alright that is it for round one 

I (and I am sure others) are enjoying the discussion, but it seems the discussion is getting to a point to where you guys might be growing a huge disdain for each other. I for one, do not want that.

Obviously not telling you guys what to do, just throwing it out there.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

Naw....I love JB.  He's a good one.  We just disagree on a few things here and there....and there....and there....oh, and there....and over here.

Love ya JB.  Can't promise I won't keep pushing you.  But I love ya man.  Glad you're part of the Kingdom of Christ.

I know Nic is enjoying the conversation.  I get to be the judgemental Christian again today.  I'm thinking of trying to make that my Halloween costume or something.  "Hey, what are you supposed to be?"..."Why, a holier than thou Christian....sinner!"


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Naw....I love JB.  He's a good one.  We just disagree on a few things here and there....and there....and there....oh, and there....and over here.
> 
> Love ya JB.  Can't promise I won't keep pushing you.  But I love ya man.  Glad you're part of the Kingdom of Christ.
> 
> I know Nic is enjoying the conversation.  I get to be the judgemental Christian again today.  I'm thinking of trying to make that my Halloween costume or something.  "Hey, what are you supposed to be?"..."Why, a holier than thou Christian....sinner!"





You kill me HF.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

> Alright that is it for round one




The question is:  How did the judges score the round?

It's a tough question because judging is frowned upon 'round these parts.  Maybe we go with the youth soccer model.  Nobody wins, but we all get a trophy at the end of the season?


----------



## The Foreigner (Oct 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Being skeptical and rational "pollutes" the church!?



NO... skepticISM and rationalISM pollute the church. I thought I made that clear in my original post - if I didn't -apologies.

Peace.


----------



## The Foreigner (Oct 12, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> a. Yes.
> b. Through the study of God's Word
> 
> 
> ...



I think rjcruiser has hit the jackpot - it was what I was getting at when i talked about authority - is there an authority - a final one that is, under which all other authorities must take a bow. Doubt and relativism deny authority.

And hunting fool and JB0704 - cool your jets!


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm thinking of trying to make that my Halloween costume or something.  "Hey, what are you supposed to be?"..."Why, a holier than thou Christian....sinner!"



epic.



Huntinfool said:


> The question is:  How did the judges score the round?



Looks like I get the score for round 1    See below.



The Foreigner said:


> I think rjcruiser has hit the jackpot - it was what I was getting at when i talked about authority - is there an authority - a final one that is, under which all other authorities must take a bow. Doubt and relativism deny authority.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> I think rjcruiser has hit the jackpot - it was what I was getting at when i talked about authority - is there an authority - a final one that is, under which all other authorities must take a bow. Doubt and relativism deny authority.



There is an authority, and truth.  Problem is, and always will be, that people see what they want to see (the last 30 or so posts on this thread are a great example).


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Glad you're part of the Kingdom of Christ.



I appreciate it HF.


----------



## The Foreigner (Oct 12, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> There is an authority, and truth.  Problem is, and always will be, that people see what they want to see (the last 30 or so posts on this thread are a great example).



No doubt, but my point was somewhat different to that. I'd rather someone hold the wrong beliefs (as long as they are not soul ****ing beliefs) strongly, than someone in constant doubt. Or someone who says "we can't get near the truth because who is to say who's right?" 

That simply won't do. Either the Word of God says something concrete or it doesn't. If men are open to the workings of the Spirit then we should be led into truth.   I just don't resonate with that middle, doubt-filled ground.  

I also don't resonate with the idea, that "because there are so many views out there, I'll just decide what is right for myself". Some people just sit in the middle, essentially their own authority. If there is authority, and it is supreme and divine, then it demands to be obeyed to the utmost. I think the Bible speaks of "ALL your heart, your soul, mind, and strength"  - not part.

Peace to all. I appreciated many of your comments, especially the workings of the Spirit in the believer.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 13, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> Sometimes in a slow moment I find myself flicking through old threads on the forum. I keep coming across a recurring theme in some of the comments.
> 
> Its the idea that we can't be certain about some fundamental things: sometimes it's our faith; perhaps many doctrines within the faith; we are asked can we critique others' faith legitimately when they do the same to us?; can we critique unbelievers legitimately when they critique us in like manner?
> 
> ...



It just occured to me that from the place which formes the bases where sovereignty is percieved to occupy peoples lives--is what forms certainty and praticular character.

Say one substituted the preamble to the constitution of the United States or the Old Testatment or Revelation. To the degree we stress interpretations and our understandings of God, his message and his purpose, would depend not unlike how the US constitution is interpreted for its Preamble. 

As it is with the constitution, it is also with scripture or the Word. We will find meaning by the two general  methods: from exactly what the words say and another method what is the spirit of the words, from the context of when and by who the words were written.

I find it interesting that you indicate that God is the sovereign and then go on to emphasise that on should proceed from the Word to Logic and not the inverse.

 This is perhaps an instance of how a society can shape the undertanding, regards the citizen, of spiritual certainty.In commonweath countries... soveriegnty is derived in part by a monarch which is traditionally anointed by the church. In the United States of America soveriegnty is derived "by the people" who are saved by grace and the word.

In fact, I would make the case that the word for many is soveriegn in the spiritual outlook of many americans. Most interpret God's word exactly as the are written. Others on the otherhand interpret from the spirit of the word.  The latter would say the United States of America and our christianity derived from the "spirit" of the people, which is the spirit of America, and not the exact meaning from the wording of text.

Example: and think of how it applies to interpreting scripture and grace.





> :“
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> ...


----------



## gtparts (Oct 13, 2011)

Waited a good while to comment on this thread and this is what I know to be true.

Once I was lost and, by my very nature, rebellious of God and condemned to eternal separation from Him. 

I had no way of changing my condition; was impotent to alter myself or my ultimate destination.

Because God is passionate about the crown of His creation, He has provided the only way by which anyone can be reconciled to Him. 

God drew me to himself, taking full responsibility for my redemption. That I submitted to Him is my choice, but it is not the vehicle of my salvation. Had Christ not died and risen as the substitutionary payment for my sin debt, choosing to submit to God would be of no use in altering my eternal destination. So, you see, my yielding to Him is the point where I give up control and give control to Him.

Because of Him, I am not the man I once was. Changed? Without a doubt! But, the man that I am now would "never have been" if the transformation was predicated on my strength alone. It is by God's hand that I choose to be remade. I only seek to please Him. Willing obedience contains no ego, no personal exaltation. 

Most everything else is subject to examination and discussion. That is not to say that I lack an opinion. It just means that I will listen and weigh what is said against His Word and the Holy Spirit. 

God's Word says we can know with absolute certainty some things (such as His love and His salvation), but it denies we can know it all, at least in this life. Some things are just not for us to know.

What I know of spiritual things is based on the faith that God has given me and the confirmation I have experienced in His Word and by the Holy Spirit. He has given me the peace that satisfies my need to know.


----------



## The Foreigner (Oct 13, 2011)

Gordon 2 - think I follow you there, but not sure. 

gtparts - Amen to every word.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 13, 2011)

GT, I'm glad to see your post.
The question was "who's right?".  You're right GT.

A person just has to keep their eye on the Jesus' cross and His empty tomb.
Accept Him as their Savior.
Give themselves wholly to Him as the guide of their life.
Love God and Love His Son.
Study to show themselves approved.
Do good things all their life.

And be certain then that God will love you.


----------



## rance56 (Jan 5, 2012)

The Foreigner said:


> For Example: If Christ says "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except by me" - it stands to reason that there can not be more than one way. He is arguing for the exclusivity of himself as the Way. There are some things (not the hidden Deut 29 things) that we can be certain of.  Our doctrine must by biblically and logically consistent - (biblically first then logically - do it the other way around and you are in a mess!!!)
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> i was thinking along these lines the other day, and maybe its just my lack of knowledge, but what happened to the native americas who died before christianity was brought to the americas?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 5, 2012)

rance56 said:


> i was thinking along these lines the other day, and maybe its just my lack of knowledge, but what happened to the native americas who died before christianity was brought to the americas?



Lots of opinions on that one, you can find a few of them here:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=644857


----------

