What *do* we know for sure?

[mkgal1]

I'd submit ( ) there's a LOT that is still left up to "mystery" in the Bible (that allows for changing times/cultures).

Even in the early church days it seems as if there was a lot that people struggled to understand and needed to "reason" and discuss (and were praised for doing so--as in Acts 17:11).

It just seems to me that when we believe we have God (and His principles) all figured out (and impose things on others that aren't in the biblical text)---we are taking on the attitudes of the Pharisees.

Aren't there ways we can avoid doing that? Aren't there certain phrases that can just be totally ditched (like, "I choose to follow the biblical view" or "I have a high regard for Scripture"---implying the other person *doesn't*). Wouldn't discussion be a whole lot more honoring and respectful? Isn't that something we *do* know for sure (that we *should* be honoring and respectful)?

 

[Gwen-is-new!]

If someone told me that they "had a biblical worldview or a high view of scripture", I wouldn't take it personally, get defensive, or assume they were implying I didn't. I'd think and probably say "Praise God. I am so glad you do!"

We are all, and always will be, at different places in our journey with the Lord (sanctification), and although there is only one Holy Spirit, we all are operating in different levels of faith - no one is intentionally and maliciously trying to trample the word of God to fit their agenda or whatever --- call me naïve

 

[mkgal1]

I think you may be misunderstanding the context I'm referring to when I mention the use of those phrases. I mean when they're used as a weapon against others as an appeal to heaven. It's a way to bolster a person's argument by inferring that God agrees with them. It's presumptuous and arrogant to speak for God (I also think it's sort of cowardly to hide behind those sort of phrases).

 

[Dave-W]

I'd submit ( ) there's a LOT that is still left up to "mystery" in the Bible (that allows for changing times/cultures).

Even in the early church days it seems as if there was a lot that people struggled to understand and needed to "reason" and discuss (and were praised for doing so--as in Acts 17:11).

It just seems to me that when we believe we have God (and His principles) all figured out (and impose things on others that aren't in the biblical text)---we are taking on the attitudes of the Pharisees.

Aren't there ways we can avoid doing that? Aren't there certain phrases that can just be totally ditched (like, "I choose to follow the biblical view" or "I have a high regard for Scripture"---implying the other person *doesn't*). Wouldn't discussion be a whole lot more honoring and respectful? Isn't that something we *do* know for sure (that we *should* be honoring and respectful)?

IMO as men try to nail down every jot and tittle of christian doctrine, they get further and further from the truth. But we have a sense of unsettle, incompleteness, etc. when there is a mystery we don't every detail answered. It is a by product of our western thought process.

When Paul wrote in 1 Cor 13 that "we see thru a glass dimly," IT meant us too. All will be revealed on the last day. Until then, God seems to have INTENTIONALLY left a few things vague. I suggest finding peace with that.

Take for example the doctrine of the Trinity. It is mentioned in scripture (Matt 28) but never defined. And EVERY SINGLE attempt to define it beyond Father Son and Spirit (as in how it works) starts creeping into one or another of the ancient heresies. Don't go there.

 

[mkgal1]

I think you're right about that, Dave--that we [westerners] often feel a bit "unsettled" when things aren't all figured out, but feel a sense of security when we *do* believe we have everything neat and tidy fitting in a box of our understanding [even if it is a false belief system].

I also agree that we should find peace with what we're told in 1st Cor 13 that we "see through a glass dimly".....exactly. I'm also totally with you on how we shouldn't attempt to put our own understanding/definitions on things like the Trinity. Some things are just meant to be beautiful mysteries.

 

[mkgal1]

....and I don't think there's any problem with people saying, "I'm thinking that means.......". It's when people come off as if having an exclusive chat with God and were filled in on all the details of something, saying things like, "God says this about that....." in a unwavering and closed-off way. That's what throws off a decent discussion.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

So true MKGal. I've encountered to many who you can't even speak to because God told them <insert thing>, therefor your wrong because they have a 800 number to God. And of course you can't argue with them about "Was it really God?" because they usually say your judging them or its <insert word here> to claim they not be hearing from God. I say alot of things but I would never be cocky and say God told me such and such and thus I am not wrong.

 

[mkgal1]

Exactly (you can't question these people on whether it was truly God or not). They're convinced. End of story.

I saw a video this morning (it's long).....but it's called Twisted Scripture--Romans 9-- by Greg Boyd, and it's really interesting how something in the Bible can *seem* so clear (and believed by MANY)---until you hear a whole other interpretation of it.

One common verse that's easy for me to mention is: "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left". Haven't we heard this is about the rapture---and that the one being 'taken' is a GOOD thing....and the one left is an unfortunate thing? That doesn't seem to be how that should be interpreted---not based on how Jesus answered the question of "Where will they be taken?" (v 37). "He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” (v 37). That doesn't sound like a "rapture" to me. It's explained by Greg Boyd this was about the Roman seize on Jerusalem (Pax Romana).

I just think it's wise to not be closed-minded and settled on certain things.....that's all.