Kind Advice Only: What do you do when Christians will not discuss Scripture with you?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Off topic discussion. Please stick to the OP topic of the question and do not criticize me. I have specifically made it clear that I want only kind Christian advice and not criticism. I am interested in what YOU would do in regards to the question. I already know I would answer my own question long before I asked it. The point in my asking it was to compare notes with other believers and see if they would respond in a similar way.

May God bless you.

Let's see if any of this positive note comparing gets done on this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In day-to-day person-to-person interaction (offline), I just keep discussing the Word with them, praying for our eyes to be opened to what we're not seeing but are supposed to see during any disagreements about God. I pray for wisdom on how to communicate the Truth without compromising context of His Word in conversation. Sometimes it's tempting to compromise or just shutdown altogether when people throw out that favorite go-to word "legalism". It's tempting to give up. So, that's one reason to really pray and seek the Lord for wisdom.

Online, it's worse. I become very selective online. I pray for us as believers because I care what direction we're going in in Modern Christianity. And I participate in a very few threads now when there seems to be fruitful discussion. But arguing could be a form of entertainment for thread readers that just doesn't yield any spiritual growth results for anybody. That's something I'm still learning.

Essentially, when somebody who professes faith in Christ refuses to discuss Scripture with me, I just have to seek the Lord on how, from my end, I can get the Word communicated effectively - for the purpose of seed of the Word being planted.

Thank you so much, Unfinished Clay. This is the kind of response I was looking for. I agree.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Let's see if any of this positive note comparing gets done on this thread.

I cannot see the attachment. In either case, may God's love shine upon you.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then you're not asking for advice. You're wanting a discussion.

Not exactly. I do desire what other Christians may think on this topic if it is kind and friendly advice. If there is something I missed, I am totally open to hearing it. Hence, why I did ask for advice. Just because I believe I have the answer, does not mean I have all the answers.

May God bless you.
 
Upvote 0

A Realist

Living in Reality
Dec 27, 2018
1,371
1,335
Georgia
✟67,536.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hence, why I did ask for advice.
Since you believe you already have the answer to the question you asked, then I really don't know why you're asking for "advice".
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Since you believe you already have the answer to the question you asked, then I really don't know why you're asking for "advice".

As I said, I asked for advice to compare notes and see if maybe there was an answer I may have missed.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
ALL christians view scripture through they eyes of their tradition - as no doubt do you: some state it others do not - and part of that tradition is verses that support their interpretation, so they quote to defend their own tradition which means by the way "faith handed down" which was incidentally the only mechanism in the early church: it would be several hundred years and the authority of the church, before the canon we call the new testament was finally determined and ratified with the power to "bind and loose"

It would be almost another two millenia (very recent history) before all could own and read a bible. So modern day so called "bible christians" - where all argue the merits or demerits of verses is a phenomenon not possible till recent historic times, when now people can read, and afford a bible. So that is why the faith was handed down, "paradosis" "traditions" as the main vehicle. Also why stories were told through pictures in stained glass.

As example: You will find just as vociferous support for "once saved always saved" as for those opposing it, both quoting different verses to do so. There are those resolutely supporting "real presence in the sacrament eucharist " as those saying it is only symbolic or memorial. Because the quoting of verses and ignoring of some, is how apriori traditions are supported. Most of the denominations have "articles" or "creeds" - as do many non denoms as a piece of irony!

Let me pick an example: John 20:23 - which not only gives the power to forgive, it also gives the power to RETAIN sin, so icannot be explained away as "spreading the gospel to result in forgiveness" which does not address the issue of "retain" - sot it must be a delegated power to forgive or retain. ie a sacrament - which does not give people the power themselves, it is delegated by our Lord so a channel for Him.

But If I use that verse:
I have no doubt you will quickly google a rebuttal that doesnt make sense, or alternatively go silent- or hop onto a different subject compeltely . Its what christians do. Or you will do what many christians do. Many are happy to say what some verses DONT mean, ( you will oppose the idea that is sacramental confession, because of your tradition that says it is not) but you will be far less happy to say what John 20:23 does mean instead.

So some of us go back and find out what the first church taught :
those taught by apostles themseleves and we see - in ignatius , he and polycarp taught by John the apostle - a sacramental eucharist valid ONLY if performed by bishops in succession or their appointees, in a liturgical, sacramental church. That is what they taught and as St Paul says "stay true to the tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter".

But that doctrine (and therefore biblical interpretation of John 6) is not possible for a non denom since you have no succession bishops. So that is the meaning of John 6: John was taught by our Lord an knew what it meant, and that is what he passed on. Nobody seriously doubted it for the next thousand years!!!! Only now do people argue!

Only in the reformation did they try to separate the words of scripture from tradition that gave it meaning which is when all the arguments started: and also when all of the "confessions" and "articles" also began as the reformation churches defined their tradition. Faith handed down.

The upshot is you cannot view scripture without authority and traditiona, and it is that which causes some to quote some verses (in support of that cause) ignoring the verses that dont support them.} or simply failing to discuss them.

Catholics are different only in that we acknowledge the vital role of faith handed down to hand down meaning. And it is by studying that early church history and fathers, many of us come back to catholicism from elsewhere including thousands of theologians and ministers of every other denomination. But those stories are rarely heard.

The rest ALL also view scripture through their tradition shaped lenses, but are different only in they fail to acknowledge it - also their "tradition" doesnt start with the earliest fathers in many cases. It appears out of nowhere in middle ages or later. Like the symbolic only eucharist.

So out of curiosity will you discuss John 20:23 with me?

I was raised in a liberal Christian home and did not even know that Jesus was God until many, many, many years later. I had no traditions taught to me either by my family or by a specific church that I am still holding on to. When I began to study and take God's Word seriously, I asked God to show me the truth within His Word and the bulk of my teaching did not come from any one particular teacher. The only teachers I have learned from primarily was on the topic of Eschatology (i.e. the Study of the End Times). You could say that I was a little guided by Chick Publications in the presentation of the gospel and in coming to the Lord. I am also in agreement with them that the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God. But most of what I have learned was from personal study on my own with God and in debating on Christian forums and it is not from any one particular church or from my family.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have noticed that you have the unfortunate - and fallacious - practice of "Throwing the Elephant" when you discuss issues with others. You seem to think that if you throw out vast walls of text jammed with verses, that somehow you've made your case well. But a multitude of verses and words don't, by themselves, guarantee a good argument. I have found in the few discussions I've had with you that when I begin to check through the proof texts you cite, very often they don't prove your point at all. Anyway, the "Throwing the Elephant" tactic is used most commonly to smother contrary points of view, to make replying to your posts so laborious and time-consuming that no one wants to bother. And so, they don't. They just skip over your posts, or skim through them, picking out what seems most pertinent to them. If you want more productive discussions, then, I would suggest you stop "Throwing the Elephant."

If walls of text (on occasion) are wrong, then we would not have a Bible. Paul wrote lengthy letters to the churches that they had to read. The Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not. Man shall not live by bread alone, but every word of God. If someone is truly into Scripture, and they seek to internalize it, they will not set aside Scripture as it means nothing to them, but they will seek to at least explain a few of the verses in a proposed large list (Because they love God's Word and they want others to know the truth of it). Sometimes I do take parts of Scripture from my large list of verses and try to discuss them with others in regards to certain topics (because it may seem overwhelming to some), but the verse or two sometimes still goes unaddressed or they throw down the original languages card and say that the English words are in error. Others will attempt to use the metaphor card to undo what God's Word says.

In regards to my question of this thread: Others have offered some interesting suggestions, but the one that is the best is praying for the individual so that they may see. That is my original answer to my own question within the OP.

In any event, may God bless you.

Side Note:

I do understand when others wrongfully overuse the walls of text approach. They do not talk to you personally and or give you short answers as often as we would like. But I do not believe I always keep hitting a person with walls of text over and over and over and over and over again. One time for each person is enough. But truth of God's Word should not be hidden just because people do not like to read lots of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Scripture is ambiguous. I do not know where you stand on any of it, nor Is it relevant here. But you no doubt have a stand on OSAS or not (there are several flavours - each with standard defenses in scripture - that people have picked up from others) , Symbolic vs Real Presence in eucharist, One of the flavours of baptism. Indeed on every aspect of doctrine there are several (often mutually exclusive - only one of OSAS, ) alternatives, and the denominatinos (and non denoms) hold them in pretty much all permutations and will often cite verses that support their permutation, that they either got from "articles" or they got from others eg on forums.


But because they are exclusive - only one permutation is therefore the truth, yet all claim to take "their version" from scripture. ( only one of 1/ OSAS 2/ Saved but can lose it, or 3/ not saved till the end, can be true. And If one is true the others are false) So not all have the truth.

The point I make is you view scripture through a lens of the sum of experiences you have encountered.No doubt you have a view on OSAS, and it probably came from someone else!

You do not come to it without preconceptions, even if you are unaware of them.

So when you ask "why wont people discuss" it is hard to get anyone to engage with the scriptures that dont agree with "their tradition".

I have yet to get a sensible conversation - with anyone on such as John 20:23 I gave as example which supports sacramental confession. I could have picked many like Matthew 16:19 which is clearly giving a person (not a rock) the power to state what is true doctrine. The usual response I get if at all is "IT DOESNT MEAN XYZ....the ones who say it does not mean, refuse to say what it does mean"

There are also sections of the bible, that some denominations dodge. Ive heard of many pastors who dodged discussion of John 6 - because they knew it would cause problems in a symbolic interpretation of eucharist - a lot of them ended as catholics..

So I am agreeing with you when you say they dodge...

But as a non denom.. how do you engage with 1 timorthy 3 "the foundation of truth is the church" "which is the household of God" (which we know from OT means physical church) - so in what sense to a non denom can their church be " the foundation of truth" if it didnt exist in early times. So do you engage with that?













I was raised in a liberal Christian home and did not even know that Jesus was God until many, many, many years later. I had no traditions taught to me either by my family or by a specific church that I am still holding on to. When I began to study and take God's Word seriously, I asked God to show me the truth within His Word and my teaching did not come from any one particular teacher. The only teachers I have learned from primarily was on the topic of Eschatology (i.e. the Study of the End Times). You could say that I was a little guided by Chick Publications in the presentation of the gospel and in coming to the Lord. I am also in agreement with them that the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God. But most of what I have learned was from personal study on my own with God and in debating on Christian forums and it is not from any one particular church or from my family.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What do you do when Christians will not discuss Scripture with you?
Nothing, move on. Yeshua said, "He that seeks will find." We can't make somebody seek, therefore, we offer, and if they are not taking, we respectfully move on and leave the door open for when they are ready.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sabertooth
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nothing, move on. Yeshua said, "He that seeks will find." We can't make somebody seek, therefore, we offer, and if they are not taking, we respectfully move on and leave the door open for when they are ready.

I disagree, my friend.
We are in a spiritual war.
I believe we can pray to God for them so that they might see.

Side Note:

Speaking of a spiritual war we are in:

I would recommend checking out this Christian film.

 
Upvote 0

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,724
✟188,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Lots of pitfalls to discuss, here.
  1. Length of posts: If you're posting by computer and the other guy is thumbing on his phone, it may be tempting to post a long-winded message. Sometimes less is more. People are short on time and attention spans. They'll be afraid to post concise points to you if they fear they'll have to read a huge response every time. Even patient people will already have a reply formulated in their heads before they get entirely through a long post, and once that happens, it's much harder to pay attention to the rest of the post. Shorter posts are more likely to be read.
  2. Presupposition: People have different starting points in their reasoning. If you don't address those points and if you don't either find common ground or convince them to explore a new way of thinking, then your argument is dead from the beginning. It doesn't mean you're wrong, but that you won't get anywhere. The presupposition that a person has taints the direction of their reasoning, also, predetermining the target of their line of reasoning. Various steps in the reasoning get strained, and it becomes obvious when you know what the person is aiming for. While you can't do much about the other person, you need to at least be subtle about it with yourself. Is your reasoning guiding itself, or are you using it to get to a predetermined end? As soon as your reader detects a predetermined end your case is dead.
  3. Concession: Let the other person reach you. This is my own personal weakness. If the other person doesn't get a chance to move you a little, then the other person won't move. This doesn't mean that you have to knowingly agree to falsehood, but you don't want to respond every time with an inflexible direct contradiction. Then, you're just blabbing at each other for no reason. You can, if you're careful, concede a point for the sake of argument. Let them steer the argument their own way to give you a chance to show them the wall that they're running into.
  4. Know when to leave: This one is a personal favorite of mine. Present your argument, read their rebuttal, give your counter-rebuttal, and then read their response. If the conversation isn't progressing, then don't waste your time. In an open forum you don't want to tangle yourself up with certain individuals who will trick you into all kinds of logical contortions to counter their own insane reasoning. It makes you both look dumb. An argument too custom-tailored to one person's bad reasoning will fail to convince everyone else, and it probably won't even convince the person you're aiming at.
  5. Don't make mountains out of molehills: Sometimes the argument is about the truth or falsehood of a fact, but in the other person's mind you have yet to prove the significance. Let small things be small and let big things be big. Don't argue matters of personal preference to death. If you make everything big, then you become tedious. You'll be the most-ignored poster on the forum.
  6. Allow for differences in cognitive ability: Be gentle. Some people think with emotion. Some think with heuristic reasoning (reasoning that naturally excludes "unlikely" possibilities, which may not seem unlikely to the next person). Some people think with algorithmic reasoning (reasoning that considers every possibility, which sometimes looks like entertaining heresy or getting lost on wild tangents). Some people think by battery of facts, quotes, and anecdotes, with little or no reasoning applied. My experience has been that these ways of thinking are unchangeable for any given person. If you take the algorithmic approach to the heuristic thinker, he will think you're a fool. The fact guy wants direct scriptural confirmation of everything, and sound reasoning looks like a person standing on their own authority. The emotional person only knows that God is love, etc. Once you realize that you're dealing with someone who thinks differently, it's best to write your response to whomever else happens to be reading, and limit the duration of the conversation to a post or two. You won't get anywhere with someone who doesn't structure their thinking the way you do, unless the Holy Spirit moves them (or you), or you catch them in the middle of a crisis.
Anyway, that was long-winded. I'm sorry. I just find this whole subject fascinating.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Scripture is ambiguous. I do not know where you stand on any of it, nor Is it relevant here. But you no doubt have a stand on OSAS or not (there are several flavours - each with standard defenses in scripture - that people have picked up from others) ,

I am a non-denominational, Trinitarian, Sola Scriptura, Dualistic Conditional Immortality, and a Pacifist type Christian who is strongly against OSAS or Belief Alone-ism. I believe after we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ (believing in His death and resurrection on our behalf and seeking forgiveness of our sins with Him), we also are saved by "works of faith" (Sanctification, i.e. Which is the next step or stage in the salvation process). I believe Paul argued against "Works Alone Salvationism" (that did not include God's grace through faith) because he was trying to speak against the heresy of "Circumcision Salvationism" that was attacking the different churches during that time (See: Galatians 2:3, Galatians 2:3, Galatians 5:2, Galatians 5:6, Galatians 6:5, 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, Romans 2:28-29, Romans 3:1, Romans 4:9-12, Acts of the Apostles 21:21. Also see: Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, Acts of the Apostles 15:24).

You said:
Symbolic vs Real Presence in eucharist, One of the flavours of baptism. Indeed on every aspect of doctrine there are several (often mutually exclusive - only one of OSAS, ) alternatives, and the denominatinos (and non denoms) hold them in pretty much all permutations and will often cite verses that support their permutation, that they either got from "articles" or they got from others eg on forums.

At the end of the day, Scripture is our sole authority. We will all have to answer to God on our doctrine and on whether or not we obeyed His Word. The traditions of men are not God's words and they will fade away like the dust. Traditions in the Bible is generally looked upon as something that is bad and not good. In the one instance that it is used in a positive way, it is in reference to God's Word that was to be written down, and it was not in reference to some oral set of traditions that were passed down.

You said:
But because they are exclusive - only one permutation is therefore the truth, yet all claim to take "their version" from scripture. ( only one of 1/ OSAS 2/ Saved but can lose it, or 3/ not saved till the end, can be true. And If one is true the others are false) So not all have the truth.

The point I make is you view scripture through a lens of the sum of experiences you have encountered.No doubt you have a view on OSAS, and it probably came from someone else!

You do not come to it without preconceptions, even if you are unaware of them.

The Bible is the only reliable source of truth when it comes to spiritual matters. It is the only book in human history that has proven itself divine in origin ten times over.

Here is a Blogger article I created that shows forth many evidences that prove that God's Word is divine in origin:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

No other holy book, or church tradition can make such a claim as on the level of being on par with Scripture or the Bible.

You said:
So when you ask "why wont people discuss" it is hard to get anyone to engage with the scriptures that dont agree with "their tradition".

But God can change men's hearts if Christians pray for them.
We are in a spiritual battle.

You said:
I have yet to get a sensible conversation - with anyone on such as John 20:23 I gave as example which supports sacramental confession.

No. John 20:23 does not teach that.

Here is what it says:

"Whoever’s sins you declare forgiveness upon [by your witness of their receiving the gospel]*, their sins are forgiven unto them; and whoever’s sins you declare as still remaining [by your witness of their rejection of the gospel]*, their sins will still remain."
(John 20:23).​

Note: The brackets in blue above in the verse is my commentary to the text.

How is this interpretation correct? Well, when we read about how Jesus appears to the disciples in John 20:19-23, and Luke 24:36-43, we also have to read verses 46-48 in Luke 24, which says this.

46 "And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things."
(Luke 24:46-48).​

This is tied in with the gospel. The other gospels ends with the necessity of the gospel so as to preached to all nations (Which is a part of a person's forgiveness of their sins).

You said:
I could have picked many like Matthew 16:19 which is clearly giving a person (not a rock) the power to state what is true doctrine. The usual response I get if at all is "IT DOESNT MEAN XYZ....the ones who say it does not mean, refuse to say what it does mean"

We often erroneously think that all commands given to the early disciples are for us today. The word "keys" is the teaching of God's Word. God's Word (i.e. Scripture or the keys or God's teaching) was authenticated by signs and miracles by Jesus and His followers. Yes, in a manner of speaking, these key teachings are passed down to us, but they are not directly given to us by God like the apostles. They were the ones who were forming Scripture at that time and giving them the keys of the Kingdom (i.e. the teachings of God). This is not talking about some oral passed down tradition or some kind of extra tradition that was added on top of Scripture. The good traditions mentioned in God's Word is in reference to teachings of God that was to be written down. They would obviously write what they were teaching down that was important and they would not risk just passing their teachings done orally so that it would be lost. Nor was there some kind of extra book labeled "traditions" that existed during the time of the formation of the Holy Scriptures that is known as the Bible today.

You said:
There are also sections of the bible, that some denominations dodge. Ive heard of many pastors who dodged discussion of John 6 - because they knew it would cause problems in a symbolic interpretation of eucharist - a lot of them ended as catholics..

Yeah, I honestly do not see how anyone can be Catholic. To me it so obviously not true in tons of ways. I can write for days on how I believe it is unbiblical, but I have found that arguing against Catholicism at "Christian Forums" does not go over too well here, so I pick and choose my battles.

You said:
So I am agreeing with you when you say they dodge...

Although every fiber of my being is against Catholicism and I can easily defend why it is unbiblical with Scripture, It is nice that we can agree on something.

You said:
But as a non denom.. how do you engage with 1 timorthy 3 "the foundation of truth is the church" "which is the household of God" (which we know from OT means physical church) - so in what sense to a non denom can their church be " the foundation of truth" if it didnt exist in early times. So do you engage with that?

Simple. Jesus is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22) (Ephesians 5:23) (Colossians 1:18).

The Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus. “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;” (Ephesians 2:18-20). We are said to have access by one Spirit unto the Father that is build upon the “foundation” of the apostles and prophets. Being an apostle is a gift (See 1 Corinthians 12:28-31). The qualifications of being an apostle was to have seen the risen Lord Jesus Christ (See Acts of the Apostles 1:22-26). Paul said he met the qualifications as being an apostle because he had seen the risen Lord. 1 Corinthians 9:1 “…Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Paul called himself the “last prophet.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Paul says that God has set forth the apostles last (1 Corinthians 14:9).

New revelation (prophecy) or new words from God are not to be added (Revelation 22:18-19). If a person were to add to God’s Word, the plagues that are within the book known as the Bible (not the plagues in Revelation) would be added to them. We have occurrences of this actually happening. See these two links here:

Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show.
Bible Correctors lose Voice
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Lots of pitfalls to discuss, here.
Length of posts: If you're posting by computer and the other guy is thumbing on his phone, it may be tempting to post a long-winded message. Sometimes less is more. People are short on time and attention spans. They'll be afraid to post concise points to you if they fear they'll have to read a huge response every time. Even patient people will already have a reply formulated in their heads before they get entirely through a long post, and once that happens, it's much harder to pay attention to the rest of the post. Shorter posts are more likely to be read.

I do not believe that posting lengthy posts is wrong in any way. Over the many years of posting on various different Christian forums, I have had many people thank me for my exhaustive work (and I have even helped to change their mind, too). It is not often, but it has happened for me. There is an art to posting lengthy posts. If I discover a person is not addressing my lengthy posts, I will give it to them later (in the same thread) in bite sized pieces. I also have had others address a good majority of my super long posts before, too. Those who have short attention spans, I address at a later point. But for me: I do not think it is wrong to give them the whole truth of what God's Word says on a particular topic. To not give them all of the Scriptures on a particular topic would be like hiding truth from them and I do not feel that such a thing is correct. Granted, I have run into folks on the forums whereby they keep posting the same long walls of text to you every time you just want to talk to them about anything. I think there is a time and place for posting long posts, and a person needs to know when to do so, and when not to do so. I think each situation is different and you have to adjust to the individual without compromising in sharing the truth. Posting a long set of verses is not wrong. But I believe that if I keep sending them the same walls of texts over and over and over, then I am not talking to them as a human being anymore. But sharing long posts with Scripture (when the situation calls for it) is not wrong and it is actually very essential to preaching the truth of God's Word and for us all to grow and learn.

Presupposition: People have different starting points in their reasoning. If you don't address those points and if you don't either find common ground or convince them to explore a new way of thinking, then your argument is dead from the beginning. It doesn't mean you're wrong, but that you won't get anywhere. The presupposition that a person has taints the direction of their reasoning, also, predetermining the target of their line of reasoning. Various steps in the reasoning get strained, and it becomes obvious when you know what the person is aiming for. While you can't do much about the other person, you need to at least be subtle about it with yourself. Is your reasoning guiding itself, or are you using it to get to a predetermined end? As soon as your reader detects a predetermined end your case is dead.

I have employed this method on occasion in the past. There are times on occasion I try to help them to see something based upon something that we do agree upon as an example to see where I am coming from. This has helped on rare occasion, but it has not helped them to give up entirely what they believe (that I feel is unbiblical). Again, I feel it is prayer that is the most needed thing for their eyes to be opened.

You said:
Concession: Let the other person reach you. This is my own personal weakness. If the other person doesn't get a chance to move you a little, then the other person won't move. This doesn't mean that you have to knowingly agree to falsehood, but you don't want to respond every time with an inflexible direct contradiction. Then, you're just blabbing at each other for no reason. You can, if you're careful, concede a point for the sake of argument. Let them steer the argument their own way to give you a chance to show them the wall that they're running into.

There are times I will agree with my opponent on a particular truth in Scripture even though I strongly disagree with them. So yes, I employ this method when the situation calls for it.

Know when to leave: This one is a personal favorite of mine. Present your argument, read their rebuttal, give your counter-rebuttal, and then read their response. If the conversation isn't progressing, then don't waste your time. In an open forum you don't want to tangle yourself up with certain individuals who will trick you into all kinds of logical contortions to counter their own insane reasoning. It makes you both look dumb. An argument too custom-tailored to one person's bad reasoning will fail to convince everyone else, and it probably won't even convince the person you're aiming at.

I do not believe that standing up for the truth for a long time is wrong. There have been certain topics that have been dragged out for almost a hundred pages, and I really learned a lot in God's Word and in other things by doing so. But yes, I feel that there are times to know when to leave. I usually allow God to talk to my heart on when to leave a thread or when to no longer talk to a certain specific individual. Prayer is helpful in this and not going off our own gut instinct (Which can be fallible or imperfect).

You said:
Don't make mountains out of molehills: Sometimes the argument is about the truth or falsehood of a fact, but in the other person's mind you have yet to prove the significance. Let small things be small and let big things be big. Don't argue matters of personal preference to death. If you make everything big, then you become tedious. You'll be the most-ignored poster on the forum.

It depends on how someone defines the big things and small things. But yes, I agree; We should not argue heavily on smaller matters or truths that are not so clear in Scripture.

You said:
Allow for differences in cognitive ability: Be gentle. Some people think with emotion. Some think with heuristic reasoning (reasoning that naturally excludes "unlikely" possibilities, which may not seem unlikely to the next person). Some people think with algorithmic reasoning (reasoning that considers every possibility, which sometimes looks like entertaining heresy or getting lost on wild tangents). Some people think by battery of facts, quotes, and anecdotes, with little or no reasoning applied. My experience has been that these ways of thinking are unchangeable for any given person. If you take the algorithmic approach to the heuristic thinker, he will think you're a fool. The fact guy wants direct scriptural confirmation of everything, and sound reasoning looks like a person standing on their own authority. The emotional person only knows that God is love, etc. Once you realize that you're dealing with someone who thinks differently, it's best to write your response to whomever else happens to be reading, and limit the duration of the conversation to a post or two. You won't get anywhere with someone who doesn't structure their thinking the way you do, unless the Holy Spirit moves them (or you), or you catch them in the middle of a crisis.

Yes, I do agree, that not everyone thinks like me. But I think God will change a person in time to be more in dedication to Him and His Word if they are truly seeking to please the Lord Jesus Christ. There will be less of themselves and more of Christ. But yes, it is important to recognize how to handle different people. But we as Christians should never compromise on preaching God's Word to anyone or to feed the sheep. Someone may not be ready to hear the Word now, but in time, they may later be able to hear it when God opens their heart by our praying for them.

You said:
Anyway, that was long-winded. I'm sorry. I just find this whole subject fascinating.

Thank you for your well thought out response. It is greatly appreciated and helpful, my friend.

Again, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I disagree, my friend.
We are in a spiritual war.
I believe we can pray to God for them so that they might see.

Side Note:

Speaking of a spiritual war we are in:

I would recommend checking out this Christian film.

I don't understand you at all sometimes, brother. You asked what we should do when a Christian will not discuss Scripture with you. The answer is... wait. You can't force him... in fact, if you look at the Thayer or Liddel-Scott definition of heresies (the Greek underlying word) you find it is dealing with force.. when you force others to comply with you, you are both a legalist and a heretic. A person must WANT to learn, or he won't learn. He must be asking questions, or he won't hear answers. I think your problem is you see the Great Commission as a call to convert... when it is a call to TEACH. It is a passive sentence in the Greek better rendered, "as you are going, teaching." You see, "GO!" in English and see a command, but the Greek is a participle... an ing ending.

Regardless... be well. I don't care to argue this. Shalom.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand you at all sometimes, brother. You asked what we should do when a Christian will not discuss Scripture with you. The answer is... wait. You can't force him... in fact, if you look at the Thayer or Liddel-Scott definition of heresies (the Greek underlying word) you find it is dealing with force.. when you force others to comply with you, you are both a legalist and a heretic. A person must WANT to learn, or he won't learn. He must be asking questions, or he won't hear answers. I think your problem is you see the Great Commission as a call to convert... when it is a call to TEACH. It is a passive sentence in the Greek better rendered, "as you are going, teaching." You see, "GO!" in English and see a command, but the Greek is a participle... an ing ending.

Regardless... be well. I don't care to argue this. Shalom.

So you see that praying for a person for their eyes to be opened as forcing a person to see the truth? You see my preaching the Scriptures with love to them for long periods of time as forcing them to see the truth?

I see forcing a person to see the truth as using violence or in being hostile towards them in some way. Force implies that you are using a violent or hostile means to persuade them. I am not sure how I am doing that in any way. I believe in praying for people to change their mind so as to see the truth, and I believe in preaching God's Word to people as long as it takes.

The Bible says:

"...you should earnestly contend for the faith " (Jude 1:3).

I am not sure how you interpret this verse, but for me, I see it as preaching God's Word with boldness to all for as long as it takes.

I cannot force anyone to believe, but I can contend for the faith by preaching God's Word for my Lord Jesus Christ and I can pray for them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
First.

I suggest you get a proper bible, not an amended one, see what john 20:23 actually says, not what someone made it say in that version. You dont get to judge others faith in the context you claim..


Second I suggest you study WHERE THE BIBLE CAME FROM
And by what authority you consider it true.
Indeed by what authoirty the canon was chosen in the third/fourth centuries.
And why books were rejected as well as accepted.

If you did, you would know it cannot be the only source of truth.

You clearly are unaware of the first few centuries of christianity.
Indeed what the first christians, even paul SAID about tradition, and what those taught by apostles said about apostolic succession.

I notice you wont talk about the "foundation of truth" the physical church = which is a problem for all you say.

I Noted you dodge quesionts - which was the theme of the thread.



I am a non-denominational, Trinitarian, Sola Scriptura, Dualistic Conditional Immortality, and a Pacifist type Christian who is strongly against OSAS or Belief Alone-ism. I believe after we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ (believing in His death and resurrection on our behalf and seeking forgiveness of our sins with Him), we also are saved by "works of faith" (Sanctification, i.e. Which is the next step or stage in the salvation process). I believe Paul argued against "Works Alone Salvationism" (that did not include God's grace through faith) because he was trying to speak against the heresy of "Circumcision Salvationism" that was attacking the different churches during that time (See: Galatians 2:3, Galatians 2:3, Galatians 5:2, Galatians 5:6, Galatians 6:5, 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, Romans 2:28-29, Romans 3:1, Romans 4:9-12, Acts of the Apostles 21:21. Also see: Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, Acts of the Apostles 15:24).



At the end of the day, Scripture is our sole authority. We will all have to answer to God on our doctrine and on whether or not we obeyed His Word. The traditions of men are not God's words and they will fade away like the dust. Traditions in the Bible is generally looked upon as something that is bad and not good. In the one instance that it is used in a positive way, it is in reference to God's Word that was to be written down, and it was not in reference to some oral set of traditions that were passed down.



The Bible is the only reliable source of truth when it comes to spiritual matters. It is the only book in human history that has proven itself divine in origin ten times over.

Here is a Blogger article I created that shows forth many evidences that prove that God's Word is divine in origin:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

No other holy book, or church tradition can make such a claim as on the level of being on par with Scripture or the Bible.



But God can change men's hearts if Christians pray for them.
We are in a spiritual battle.



No. John 20:23 does not teach that.

Here is what it says:

"Whoever’s sins you declare forgiveness upon [by your witness of their receiving the gospel]*, their sins are forgiven unto them; and whoever’s sins you declare as still remaining [by your witness of their rejection of the gospel]*, their sins will still remain."
(John 20:23).​

Note: The brackets in blue above in the verse is my commentary to the text.

How is this interpretation correct? Well, when we read about how Jesus appears to the disciples in John 20:19-23, and Luke 24:36-43, we also have to read verses 46-48 in Luke 24, which says this.

46 "And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things."
(Luke 24:46-48).​

This is tied in with the gospel. The other gospels ends with the necessity of the gospel so as to preached to all nations (Which is a part of a person's forgiveness of their sins).



We often erroneously think that commands given to the disciples are for us today. The word "keys" is the teaching of God's Word. God's Word (i.e. Scripture or the keys or God's teaching) was authenticated by signs and miracles by Jesus and His followers. Yes, in a manner of speaking, these key teachings are passed down to us, but they are not directly given to us by God like the apostles. They were the ones who were forming Scripture at that time and giving them the keys of the Kingdom (i.e. the teachings of God). This is not talking about some oral passed down tradition or some kind of extra tradition that was added on top of Scripture. The good traditions mentioned in God's Word is in reference to teachings of God that was to be written down. They would obviously write what they were teaching down that was important and they would not risk just passing their teachings done orally so that it would be lost. Nor was there some kind of extra book labeled "traditions" that existed during the time of the formation of the Holy Scriptures that is known as the Bible today.



Yeah, I honestly do not see how anyone can be Catholic. To me it so obviously not true in tons of ways. I can write for days on how I believe it is unbiblical, but I have found that arguing against Catholicism at "Christian Forums" does not go over too well here, so I pick and choose my battles.



Although every fiber of my being is against Catholicism and I can easily defend why it is unbiblical with Scripture, It is nice that we can agree on something.



Simple. Jesus is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22) (Ephesians 5:23) (Colossians 1:18).

The Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus. “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;” (Ephesians 2:18-20). We are said to have access by one Spirit unto the Father that is build upon the “foundation” of the apostles and prophets. Being an apostle is a gift (See 1 Corinthians 12:28-31). The qualifications of being an apostle was to have seen the risen Lord Jesus Christ (See Acts of the Apostles 1:22-26). Paul said he met the qualifications as being an apostle because he had seen the risen Lord. 1 Corinthians 9:1 “…Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Paul called himself the “last prophet.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Paul says that God has set forth the apostles last (1 Corinthians 14:9).

New revelation (prophecy) or new words from God are not to be added (Revelation 22:18-19). If a person were to add to God’s Word, the plagues that are within the book known as the Bible (not the plagues in Revelation) would be added to them. We have occurrences of this actually happening. See these two links here:

Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show.
Bible Correctors lose Voice
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
First.

I suggest you get a proper bible, not an amended one, see what john 20:23 actually says, not what someone made it say in that version. You dont get to judge others faith in the context you claim..


Second I suggest you study WHERE THE BIBLE CAME FROM
And by what authority you consider it true.
Indeed by what authoirty the canon was chosen in the third/fourth centuries.
And why books were rejected as well as accepted.

If you did, you would know it cannot be the only source of truth.

You clearly are unaware of the first few centuries of christianity.
Indeed what the first christians, even paul SAID about tradition, and what those taught by apostles said about apostolic succession.

I notice you wont talk about the "foundation of truth" the physical church = which is a problem for all you say.

I Noted you dodge quesionts - which was the theme of the thread.

I gave a reply to what you said as a courtesy in responding. But the thread topic is not about this, my friend. I am interested in friendly Christian advise on how to respond to those who do not reply with Scripture in return.

May God bless you (even if we disagree on those other matters).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

A Realist

Living in Reality
Dec 27, 2018
1,371
1,335
Georgia
✟67,536.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jason, it appears that the "note comparing" you stated you started this thread for has quickly devolved into nothing more than you telling people that their advice is wrong.

You didn't want advice in the first place. You wanted contention.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.