I Know (I Think)

I am starting this thread in light of recent events on the site concerning disagreements and the junk manifested by them. As some expressed on the "By His Stripes" thread, I too beleive that the way we deal with disagreement, especially amongst the community of faith, reveals what's in our hearts. When one sheep bites, do we immediately bite back- harder? Must we have the last bite? What fruit is manifested? The fruits of the Spirit or the fruits of the flesh? Do we get easily offended? I think God uses disagreement amongst His children in two primary ways.Firstly, disagreement is used for good by God in that it is a quick revealer of our heart. So then, we can clearly see the junk we've produced and realize something is very wrong inside that might have gone unnoticed or, at least, wasn't as clearly seen. So then we can deal with the problem that is manifested by turning to God for repentence and help.Second, if properly dealt with, disagreement can lead to greater intimacy with God. When we present what we believe to be the truth (especially with a right heart), and we come into disagreement, it hurts a little. It's like that thing where you have a CD that you have been so blessed by and it means so much to you so you share it with a friend and they're like, "It's alright." Ouch. When you share things that mean a lot to you, you kind of put yourself on the line and are made vulnerable. Now, those who you've shared with are empowered. Whether they agree or disagree, they are empowered to build you up or cut you down. And either response, if handled correctly, can lead to greater intimacy with God. If they build you up, you are affirmed and love and joy is easily manifested. But you can observe your reponse in that situation and see what happens. Do you get proud (of yourself) or grateful (to God)? If you notice pride coming to the surface, you can humble yourself and deal with that in secret with God, and this will lead to greater intimacy.If they cut you down, you now have an opportunity to humble yourself before God by taking the cut in stride (which I have found for myself usually means simply shutting up) and maintaining a right heart towards the person. This victory of maintaining a right heart will likely have to be fought for in secret with God, and this increases intimacy. Also, if our efforts to explain what we believe are inadequate to change the other's mind (as I have found to commonly be the case), in humility we can respond in two ways. First, we can assume that we might not have done the best job of explaining and put the burden of the situation on ourselves. And second, we can sincerely consider the possibility that we are wrong. If we act this out in fellowship and conversation with God, I believe it will lead to more intimacy with Him. It will deepen our relationship with Him.I'm coming to realize that every situation in life can be an opportunity to be humble and thereby invoke God's grace. "For God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (1 Peter 5:5). Grace is for the humble, and they get it. The above is kind of my experimental thoughts and I would appreciate any feedback concerning what I've said. I also want to share this quotation I just read a few days ago that is so powerful:"Thank God that human sympathy did not blind me to eternity, for you may live in a crowd, but you meet God and face eternity alone." - Rees Howells

A small cut from Todd's piece of special worth:I'm coming to realize that every situation in life can be an opportunity to be humble and thereby invoke God's grace. "For God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (1 Peter 5:5). Grace is for the humble, and they get it.

Love the topic header! That sums up my life in a nutshell... :-) Excellent points Todd.It's like that thing where you have a CD that you have been so blessed by and it means so much to you so you share it with a friend and they're like, "It's alright." Ouch. Yes, some times it seems 'where my head is at' comes into play. Given a different atmosphere you can get a whole different perspective. Often have gone back to some of the messages that I thought were just 'alright' and upon listening again, thought, 'Wow, how'd I miss that?'Also, if our efforts to explain what we believe are inadequate to change the other's mind (as I have found to commonly be the case), in humility we can respond in two ways. First, we can assume that we might not have done the best job of explaining and put the burden of the situation on ourselves. And second, we can sincerely consider the possibility that we are wrong. If we act this out in fellowship and conversation with God, I believe it will lead to more intimacy with Him. It will deepen our relationship with Him.Absolutely. Think there is always going to be a lot of second guessing or there should be anyways. We are foremost accountable to God and it is a clever trick of the mind (or maybe it's the devil) to think "Well, God's on my side on this one" Hmmmm, are you sure about that? With a wealth of knowledge and experience behind us and a huge resource of such right here in our midst with the messages, articles and our fellow brethren, many who have walked further down this road for a lot longer than others..You would think that we are often more wrong than 'right'. If we are learning anything it would have to be because we either didn't know something or what we did know was incomplete, lacking, skewered or just flat out wrong. We can become so enamored with pleasing men rather than God. Sure it's nice to have your fellow brethren support you and affirm you but it is a strange cruelty to not point out the blind spots in each other and then say 'O bless you brother'. It's disingenious. Of course we can have some tact in doing so, something that can get pushed to the side if the right buttons get pushed and I can only cry; Guilty!The above is kind of my experimental thoughts and I would appreciate any feedback concerning what I've saidTodd, think this is more profound than you might have thought..."my experimental thoughts"In a sense that is a great deal of what goes on here. (I think) :-)

Titus 15 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. 10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. 12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.Not that we all have to be fully qualified as elders, but we should meet the character requirements or strive to do so by the grace of God. Nor that Paul was specifically addressing the health n' wealth types here (he was more concerened at the time with Judaizers and the like), but a number of the principles seem to apply.Pity about the other discussion, but I guess it just wouldn't be the internet without the occaisional irrational explosion.Lord, please guide us, that we seek first Your kingdom and Your righteousness, and also and Your truth. Also manifest in us the fruits of Your Spirit; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control and have us seek and ask You for the wisdom which comes from heaven which is first of all pure, then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of good fruit and mercy, impartial and sincere.And Lord, please help any prosperity-gospel types who wander by to understand that this is probably the place on the internet most stuffed to the gills with opposition to that kind of teaching.

Greetings all!I have been learning a lot about the way we relate to each other as Christians. I suppose the biggest one is: 1 John 5: 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?Paul and John speak very tenderly about those who are “weak in the faith”, or growing in faith. They often describe them as “little children”. Obviously as apostles, they had a vantage point in the outpouring of the spirit. They did not condescend with their vantage point and say to other Christians, “well, you obviously do not have the understanding I have so I will no longer communicate with you”. They were truly confident that the spirit was able to teach us all things. Now say you have a revelation about a passage of scripture and thereby some sort of vantage point. If you insist that a person learns your revelation immediately or perish, how does the love of God dwell in you? We are all saved by grace, not by doctrine or by diligence. In a great many things, we must forbear with one another. It is being like-minded as Christians that allows us to stand as a church“Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” Col3:13“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”~1Col1:10And again, “Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.~Rom12:16Finally the thing that stands out to me about disputes is this:2 Peter 2: 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;James

Keith,Sometimes perhaps we just need to be blunt.Thanks.

A lot of wealth to be found within this thread. I feel like God snuggly sewed together more Scripture here for me in order to teach yet another sweet lesson.

Thanks everyone.Quote:"but I guess it just wouldn't be the internet without the occaisional irrational explosion."Good point, and I think things are usually done in good taste around here. And I have probably had my own fair share of "the occasional irrational explosion."Also, the Titus reference seems somewhat relevant here but I think a few things should be added in comment. The "sound doctrine" spoken of here was directly passed down from Paul to Titus to teach to the brethren. And Paul's doctrine came directly from Jesus Christ. Titus and Paul were so well aquainted that Paul could call him his true child in the faith (1:4). Today, nearly 2000 years later, there is much disagreement about what is "sound doctrine" amongst sincere believers. And who has the kind of authority that Paul did, directly from the Lord, to pass on to leaders (who will pass it on the other leaders)? Can we get such authority from the Scriptures alone? Isn't that how the Pharisees believed authority worked? What they based their perceived authority on?Should we not tread very humbly, slowly, patiently, and gently into areas of doctrinal disagreement? I, for one, am unconvinced that the Faith camp is mostly unsound doctrinally. Their are certain extremes and excesses that I don't agree with, just like with many camps in the "common faith."

I, for one, am unconvinced that the Faith camp is mostly unsound doctrinally. Their are certain extremes and excesses that I don't agree with, just like with many camps in the "common faith." And in a twisted fashion that is the rub isn't it?The things that they are most insistent on makes everything muddy and difficult to dis-entangle the knots they can put people in.The problem isn't "that the Faith camp is mostly unsound doctrinally" it is just because of that, it creates more confusion than some of the more obvious cults which would deny Christs Deity or other more blatant extremes.The problem I see is that it doesn't 'play out' into reality in the world. With the emphasis primarily on prosperity, healing and what 'faith' can do for you, it is preoccupied with 'self', the very opposite of what the Lord said when He stated: "Take up your cross and follow Me".It is inconsistent with what is happening around the world and I would dare them to take this 'gospel' to a country where the believers are sacrificing all. Case in point:Bibles, anti-terrorist weaponAm right now trying to help out someone who has loved ones caught up in this diabolical nonsense and if recent events around here haven't shown it to be true, just how difficult it is to wretch these 'teachings' out of those caught up in it...No, this may be the worst of the worst, just for the very reason you stated...and it ticks me off to no end.

And now for the purpose I originally started with on this thread, though I got caught up in my own bunny trail in the first post...I thought it would be helpful and very interesting to share some of our experiences where we "knew" we were right about something, especially concerning God, the Bible or the Church, but later realized that we didn't "know". I'll give one of mine first. When I came back to the Lord about 3 and a half years ago I quickly got involved in a college group that was connected to Calvary Chapel. I really liked the pastor and stories were told that he would spend like 2-3 hours every morning in devotions and pretty much all day on Friday. "Wow! What a man of God!" I thought. This kind of devotion was unheard of in the circles of Christianity I grew up in. So I unconsciously concluded that everything he said was probably right, because he was closer to God than anyone else I knew. So when he began to teach on the end-times and the rapture, I took it all in and believed everything he said. Many of you likely know Calvary Chapel's views concerning the rapture and I won't go into it here. But I remember one of the most powerful arguments he gave for pre-trib rapture, or at least against post-trib. He said that it wouldn't make any sense for us to get caught up into the clouds only to bounce right back down to the earth on white horses behind Jesus. I thought, "Yeah, that's pretty obvious. That doesn't make any sense."I remember at one point during a question and answer time someone in the crowd asked, "Well what would a post-triber say in response to that?" Or something along those lines. My pastors response was something like, "I really don't know, you'll have to ask them." Of course at the time that didn't make me second guess my pastor, the awesome man of God with golden lips of righteousness and truth. Besides, he had tons of Scripture to back up his points. I "knew" he was right. Some time later, after somewhat pulling away from Calvary Chapel at least theologically, I was taking a class in college on the Pauline Epistles. Over the course of the semester I was very impressed with my professor both by his heart and biblical insight. I had heard rumors that he was a post-triber but at that point I had lost a significant amount of confidence in Calvary Chapel theology being perfect so I wasn't totally closed off to what he had to say. At some point the thought must have started to occur to me, "Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe...." One day my professor explained that in biblical times and in Eastern culture, it was a common thing for families to come out and meet their father as he returns home from a trip. And it was common for cities to come out and meet kings outside the city walls walls and then follow him into their city (or something close to that). The point is that I realized how one little piece of information can completely change a whole paradigm. It didn't convince me that post-trib is correct for sure, it mostly made me realize that I might be wrong about what I thought I knew to be true. Once I accepted the fact that I might be wrong, I was able to let go of this pet doctrine. I learned to say "I don't know" and leave mysteries in God's hands until it was time for me to learn more about them. Hopefully that made some sense. I would love hear other similar types of stories from people here. I don't so much want to debate about the rapture or anything, I just want to hear some more stories like that. Where you were absolutely 100% convinced about some truth only to realize later on that you could be wrong.

I used to be a hard determinist, seeing all human "free" actions as actually being wholly determined by past causes because I saw the decision making process as entirely composed of previously-caused influences and motivations, etc... I honestly couldn't see how anything else could be true, it just seemed so obvious to me that the state of the universe is a function of time (that is, given a point in time (t'), knowledge of the state of the universe at a previous point in time (U(t)), and sufficient knowledge of how the universe works, you can determine the exact state of the universe at the future point in time (U(t'))). I was more certain about that than possibly anything else, it seemed almost like a tautology. Needless to say, Reformed theology and I got along very well.Since then I've realized that's not really the Biblical presentation of reality, though even the belief that God knows all the future leads to a system that looks suspiciously like determinism. The open theistic alternative of "limited" foreknowledge seems to be on questionable Biblical ground, however.

Since then I've realized that's not really the Biblical presentation of reality, though even the belief that God knows all the future leads to a system that looks suspiciously like determinism. The open theistic alternative of "limited" foreknowledge seems to be on questionable Biblical ground, however.Hi KeithIs there not clear blue water between foreknowledge and pre-determination. I may know that my house is going to be broken into, but that doesn't mean that I have ordained it. I am with you on the second half; how could God part-know something?

I may know that my house is going to be broken into, but that doesn't mean that I have ordained it.That is true.However, would it not be a somewhat different situation if you had created (that is, real creation, not just moving stuff around) both the house and the person who breaks into it, having exhaustive knowledge of the composition and personality (in the case of the person) of these two things, having exhaustive foreknowledge of the existence, events, decisions, etc surrounding both these things (including the break-in), having the ability to alter any and all factors relating to these things (and anything else), exhaustively knowing the consequences of all the nearly infinite (maybe fully infinite, but that just boggles the mind) alternate possible configurations, including those that would not result in said break-in... in other words, if you were the creator, with full ability to choose however you want to create, with full knowledge of the consequences of each choice, is that not a very different situation than if you were merely the created human owner of a house with no direct influence upon the person who would break in to your house?God may not have fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass (as the WSC has it), but He certainly knew exactly what He was getting into, had no one else influencing His decisions regarding creation when He made them, and was fully free to choose otherwise.Or so the argument goes...

Hi KeithI think I counted 'exhaustive knowledge' four times and 'full knowledge' once, but however many times we say it it will remain 'knowledge' and not pre-determination.The real focus, I think, is 'the person'. Certainly God has created my burglar, but God has created him as a person and not programmed him. If he were programmed I would have to revise my definition of 'human'. God certainly knew what He was getting into, but the balance remains and is beautfully expressed (but not explained) in the Peter's exposition of the events that had led up to the Day of Pentecost; Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Act 2:23 KJV) God's plan was laid but we have blood on our hands.