What you believe, and why

[Michael Wrenn]

There is little value in any attempt to define truth or discover truth by personal experiernces, feelings, opinions, or any other number of subjective means.

The bottom line is how does subjective experiences and opinions harmonize with the Word of God. Let God be true and every man a liar when it comes to a divergence between God's Word and man's experiences/opinions/etc.

Yes, but the meaning of the word of God differs according to who is defining it.

 

[Alive in Christ]

My testimony....

Well I was a 1st class mess when I came to the end of myself. Living on reefer, whiskey, uppers, downers. acid, etc etc etc. Didnt care what girl I was cheating on The whole shabang.


Lots of people witnessed to me, but I just brushed them off. But after a while started I listened. Boy, did I listen. It was like cool water for a man stranded in the desert

When I finally called upon Jesus, in tears, the totality of my plea was....

Jesus, FIX ME! I;m broke and I need to be fixed. Pleeeease fix me.

And the most amazing things started happening. In the process of time, things started falling out of my life. No counseling, no accountability partners, structured pastoral discipline, etc etc etc. No ANY of that.

The only help I had was a bible that a christian gave me.


After a while, I came upon a few good radio boadcasts. (J Vernon McGee, Chuck Smith. Bob George, the bible answer man, Jack Hayford, Charles Stanley, and a few local broadcasts.

Praise God, Praise God, Praise God.

In time I walked into a church during a time when nothing was going on, but the pastor was there. I asked him if we could talk, and I told him my story. I started coming to the services, was blessed, and expressed my desire to be water baptized.And of course , I by then I was experiencing the joy of church fellowship.

And the rest is history :thumbs:

.

 

[Jack Matthews]

There is little value in any attempt to define truth or discover truth by personal experiernces, feelings, opinions, or any other number of subjective means.

The bottom line is how does subjective experiences and opinions harmonize with the Word of God. Let God be true and every man a liar when it comes to a divergence between God's Word and man's experiences/opinions/etc.

That's true, up to a point. However, how do you determine when what you are hearing is the Word of God, without any experiences or subjective means as part of the interpretation? Even if you go back to the original language, you still have subjective interpretation of the meaning. You can't make the scripture mean something that it was not originally intended to mean, which requires a clear and concise understanding of the context. Most of what I hear and read doesn't do a great job of either taking that into consideration, or of actually understanding it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That's true, up to a point. However, how do you determine when what you are hearing is the Word of God, without any experiences or subjective means as part of the interpretation? Even if you go back to the original language, you still have subjective interpretation of the meaning. You can't make the scripture mean something that it was not originally intended to mean, which requires a clear and concise understanding of the context. Most of what I hear and read doesn't do a great job of either taking that into consideration, or of actually understanding it.

And the concept and original meaning of headship in its NT context is a prime example of that. In that context, it means exactly the opposite of what the "good 'ol boys theology club" says it means -- to their consternation.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

 

[12strings]

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
There is little value in any attempt to define truth or discover truth by personal experiences, feelings, opinions, or any other number of subjective means.

The bottom line is how does subjective experiences and opinions harmonize with the Word of God. Let God be true and every man a liar when it comes to a divergence between God's Word and man's experiences/opinions/etc.

There IS value in hearing other people's stories of how they came to faith, and how they came to believe what they believe, even those who you think have it dead wrong. You can better understand how they came to their wrong conclusions!

Yes, but the meaning of the word of God differs according to who is defining it.

I would press you on this and see if you really mean this they way you stated it, or rather, "The meaning of the Word of God stands as God intended it, but we percieve different meanings." ???

If I believe there will not be one literal antichrist, and you believe there will be, has the meaning of God's word changed? I would say no.

 

[12strings]

Maybe this is too broad,and maybe it doesn't fit here -- I don't know.
But I would like to get to know the members better and find out how you came to be where you are today, in your beliefs.
So, here are some questions to start the discussion:
Were you raised in a Christian home? If so, do you think this had a major influence on what you believe today? If not, how and why did you become a Christian?
Why are you in the denomination you are in now? Were you always part of that denomination? If not, what made you change?
Is your belief based on head knowledge, heart knowledge, or a combination? What kind of personal experiences have you had of God? Has God spoken to your heart? How do you know? Have you heard an audible voice? Does your belief come solely from being convinced of the Christian faith by reading the scriptures?
Have any of you ever been atheists or agnostics? I so, what changed your mind?
Was your coming to faith a slow and gradual process, or dramatic and sudden? Have any of you believed since childhood, or never remember a time when you didn't believe?
Why are you a Christian and not some other religion? What answer would you give to a person of another religion, or no religion? What if you were asked how you know that your religion is correct and true and none other is?
Why do you think there are so many denominations, all claiming the Bible as the final authority, or the source book of the faith? If someone asked you how to determine which was the "truest" one, what would you say?
Well, that's enough for now. I hope we can have some good, in-depth discussion and not have it degenerate into something it shouldn't. Maybe we can all learn something from each other and understand each other better.

I was raised in a Christian home by a Christian School administrator and a Math/Music teacher. I trusted Christ for salvation at the age of 6 after a sunday night church service, I told my Dad I wanted to be saved and he made sure I understood, then led me in prayer. I grew up the good kid, though had my own private struggles through high-school & college.

I grew up in a GARBC Baptist church, and attended a college that was affiliated with them.

Halfway through college, I came in contact with a few calvinists, and roomed with one my senior year. I realized that many of the well-known preachers and teachers I liked were actually calvinists (Alistair Begg, John Macarthur, John Piper...I hadn't really thought of the whole issue before that time). I liked these men because of their relentless focus on bible-based teaching (as opposed to a Harold camping/ Benny Hinn type teacher, which is what I was comparing them to).

since then, I have been what I would call "moderately calvinistic." I later went to SBTS in Lville and learned more about the whole reformed theology. I still have lots of questions for those on both sides...though I generally don't get involved in Cal/Arm debates too much on BB cuz they get old really fast.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There IS value in hearing other people's stories of how they came to faith, and how they came to believe what they believe, even those who you think have it dead wrong. You can better understand how they came to their wrong conclusions!



I would press you on this and see if you really mean this they way you stated it, or rather, "The meaning of the Word of God stands as God intended it, but we percieve different meanings." ???

If I believe there will not be one literal antichrist, and you believe there will be, has the meaning of God's word changed? I would say no.

I would agree with that.

I have said many times that I agree with Paul that we see through a glass darkly, but it seems some believe they see through a glass as plain as day!

 

[12strings]

I was raised in a Christian home by a Christian School administrator and a Math/Music teacher. I trusted Christ for salvation at the age of 6 after a sunday night church service, I told my Dad I wanted to be saved and he made sure I understood, then led me in prayer. I grew up the good kid, though had my own private struggles through high-school & college.

I grew up in a GARBC Baptist church, and attended a college that was affiliated with them.

Halfway through college, I came in contact with a few calvinists, and roomed with one my senior year. I realized that many of the well-known preachers and teachers I liked were actually calvinists (Alistair Begg, John Macarthur, John Piper...I hadn't really thought of the whole issue before that time). I liked these men because of their relentless focus on bible-based teaching (as opposed to a Harold camping/ Benny Hinn type teacher, which is what I was comparing them to).

since then, I have been what I would call "moderately calvinistic." I later went to SBTS in Lville and learned more about the whole reformed theology. I still have lots of questions for those on both sides...though I generally don't get involved in Cal/Arm debates too much on BB cuz they get old really fast.

I didn't get to finish cuz I had to go...

I'm very glad that my current (SBC) church of 5.5 years has calvinists, Arminians, and everything in between, and that its not a point of conflict.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I didn't get to finish cuz I had to go...

I'm very glad that my current (SBC) church of 5.5 years has calvinists, Arminians, and everything in between, and that its not a point of conflict.

Yes, that's a good situation.

Thank you for your posts!

 

[Jack Matthews]

There IS value in hearing other people's stories of how they came to faith, and how they came to believe what they believe, even those who you think have it dead wrong. You can better understand how they came to their wrong conclusions!



I would press you on this and see if you really mean this they way you stated it, or rather, "The meaning of the Word of God stands as God intended it, but we percieve different meanings." ???

If I believe there will not be one literal antichrist, and you believe there will be, has the meaning of God's word changed? I would say no.

I think that's an excellent way to put it. Nor does the status of the relationship that either of us have with God through Jesus change as a result of it.

 

[12strings]

I think that's an excellent way to put it. Nor does the status of the relationship that either of us have with God through Jesus change as a result of it.

Well, that would depend on what the specific issue is. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God and that his death and resurection provides you salvation...but I believe Jesus was an imposter, and that I am called to be whole-heartedly devoted to satan and to discrediting Jesus' name...then I would say that the "status of the relationship I have with God" Is not the same as the status you have, because I have believed the wrong things on a very basic and important issue.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, that would depend on what the specific issue is. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God and that his death and resurection provides you salvation...but I believe Jesus was an imposter, and that I am called to be whole-heartedly devoted to satan and to discrediting Jesus' name...then I would say that the "status of the relationship I have with God" Is not the same as the status you have, because I have believed the wrong things on a very basic and important issue.

needs to be the true gospel and jesus, for if you see the Gospel as saying that Jesus did not die as atonement for your sins, on your behalf, false one!

 

[Jack Matthews]

Well, that would depend on what the specific issue is. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God and that his death and resurection provides you salvation...but I believe Jesus was an imposter, and that I am called to be whole-heartedly devoted to satan and to discrediting Jesus' name...then I would say that the "status of the relationship I have with God" Is not the same as the status you have, because I have believed the wrong things on a very basic and important issue.

The context of my previous comment falls within the discussion we were having about disagreement over a specific interpretation of Christian doctrine, the example being what we believed about antichrist. Obviously, the status of the relationship we have with God is completely dependent on our faith in Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

That's true, up to a point. However, how do you determine when what you are hearing is the Word of God, without any experiences or subjective means as part of the interpretation?

Whatever experience or subjective means that has any validity to it will also be confirmed by God's Word (Isa. 8:20). For example, the new birth and the leadership of the Spirit is experiential but also consistent with the Word of God. God's Word does provide objective basis to determine whether your objective experience is being derived from the Spirit of truth or the spirit of error (1 Jn. 4:5-6). Truth does not come from within or from subjective experiences. The heart is extremely deceptive and feelings change from moment to moment. You just as well join the Mormons seeking a "burning in the bosom" as to join the quakers seeking for inner enlightenment as both are futile attempts to seek truth.

Objective Truth IS the Person of God and His Will as revealed in the scriptures and subjective truth IS the Person of God and His Will revealed in your life ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.

Even if you go back to the original language, you still have subjective interpretation of the meaning.

Whether the original language or a translation makes no difference IF CONTEXT is the ultimate deciding factor used in interpretation. The Bible is a contextually self-intepreting book. Error will ALWAYS contradict context - always! Just as you go on to say:


You can't make the scripture mean something that it was not originally intended to mean, which requires a clear and concise understanding of the context.

 

[The Biblicist]

And the concept and original meaning of headship in its NT context is a prime example of that. In that context, it means exactly the opposite of what the "good 'ol boys theology club" says it means -- to their consternation.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

Sorry but you article only contains a HALF-truth. Nice try though! The metaphor "head" is also used of the Father's relationship to the Son in regard to authority, which authority the Son repeatedly expressed that he was always in submission to. In regard to husband and wife it is introduced in the context of mutual submission to the leadership of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18-21) and submission of the church to Christ. Of course it includes the HALF-truth of your writer. No sense getting into an argument with you about this as previous discussions have taught me you are impervious to truth and will not admit you are wrong regardless of how much and how clear of evidence is presented.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Sorry but you article only contains a HALF-truth. Nice try though! The metaphor "head" is also used of the Father's relationship to the Son in regard to authority, which authority the Son repeatedly expressed that he was always in submission to. In regard to husband and wife it is introduced in the context of mutual submission to the leadership of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18-21) and submission of the church to Christ. Of course it includes the HALF-truth of your writer. No sense getting into an argument with you about this as previous discussions have taught me you are impervious to truth and will not admit you are wrong regardless of how much and how clear of evidence is presented.

Hmmm... It was Jesus Who said He was the truth. That excludes you.

Therefore, I will follow Him and not you.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Whatever experience or subjective means that has any validity to it will also be confirmed by God's Word (Isa. 8:20). For example, the new birth and the leadership of the Spirit is experiential but also consistent with the Word of God. God's Word does provide objective basis to determine whether your objective experience is being derived from the Spirit of truth or the spirit of error (1 Jn. 4:5-6). Truth does not come from within or from subjective experiences. The heart is extremely deceptive and feelings change from moment to moment. You just as well join the Mormons seeking a "burning in the bosom" as to join the quakers seeking for inner enlightenment as both are futile attempts to seek truth.

Objective Truth IS the Person of God and His Will as revealed in the scriptures and subjective truth IS the Person of God and His Will revealed in your life ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.






Whether the original language or a translation makes no difference IF CONTEXT is the ultimate deciding factor used in interpretation. The Bible is a contextually self-intepreting book. Error will ALWAYS contradict context - always! Just as you go on to say:


You can't make the scripture mean something that it was not originally intended to mean, which requires a clear and concise understanding of the context.

You are ignorant of Quakerism and the varieties thereof.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are ignorant of Quakerism and the varieties thereof.

No, I am not ignorant of the Friends of General Conference or Friends United Meeting or the Religous Society of Friends (conservative). All are equally false churches and reject baptism in water, emphasize inner light over objective truth of the scriptures (even though some accept the scriptures as authoritative but still place the emphasis on inner light as final).

 

[The Biblicist]

Hmmm... It was Jesus Who said He was the truth. That excludes you.

Therefore, I will follow Him and not you.

You have mistaken that writer for God! He is not God. You have mistaken his writings for God's Word. His writings are not God's Word. You ignore that the metaphor of "head" is ALWAYS in a context of SUBMISSION including what truth that writer emphasized at the expense of submission.

Biblical headship is a loving nurturing servant spirit that God commands submission unto even though those in the position of headship do not demand submission as that spirit is contrary to Biblical headship, althoug it is not contrary for those in that position to "take the oversight" since God has given them that responsibility.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No, I am not ignorant of the Friends of General Conference or Friends United Meeting or the Religous Society of Friends (conservative). All are equally false churches and reject baptism in water, emphasize inner light over objective truth of the scriptures (even though some accept the scriptures as authoritative but still place the emphasis on inner light as final).

Your statements about the Bible and inner light are not true with regard to FUM and the Evangelical Friends Church International. And in the latter, some do practice believer's baptism and communion; others take the position of the Salvation Army: they will do it if the believer requests it, though it is not required for membership.