Okay, perhaps I exaggerate -- perhaps. Still, it is pretty much a bad thing for me or anyone else to suggest that I am confident in what I believe, at least if it is in opposition to what you (whoever "you" may be) believe. I mean, if I agree with you, confidence is warranted. But if we disagree, I had better not suggest that I'm certain. There is only one step worse, I suppose. That's if I suggest that God agrees. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
I find the position wrong-headed and untenable. Being human, we cannot operate from a position of "I just don't know". We must be confident of some things. It is necessary. I mean, if I walked about unsure of gravity because I didn't want to come across as arrogant, I'd have a hard time walking about, wouldn't I? So, while I certainly try to pepper my views liberally with "I think", "I suspect", "I believe", and the like, I find that I cannot avoid believing things with confidence. So what's a body to do?
Look, this is the problem. I am human. I am imperfect. I could be wrong. Worse, I have been wrong. I do not believe everything today that I believed 10 years ago, things of which I was generally confident. Beyond that, there are lots of people who disagree with me. Hey, I even disagree with people for whom I have a great amount of respect. I like John MacArthur, for instance, but think there are places where he's mistaken. Not many, obviously, but a few. I have a great appreciation for R.C. Sproul, but I can think of a few places where I think he's just wrong. There are people, then, who disagree with me and with whom I disagree. Worse, I suspect that there are no two people in the world with identical beliefs. So, should I surrender certainty? That's what I'm told. That's not what I believe. At least when it comes to matters of the faith.
I think there is a better option. I think that due diligence is a better choice. What do I mean by due diligence? Well, obviously you first need to have a connection to the author. No, not the guys that wrote it, but the One who breathed it. We need to know the Word, but it is God who provides enlightenment. The Bible is not solely an intellectual exercise; it is a spiritual book requiring spiritual insight provided by the Spirit. Now, to get that insight, you will need to do some work. I think that most people are pretty much "Bible lite". Too many don't read at all. More read very little. The amount of people that really read Scripture intently is actually, I suspect, pretty small. I think that due diligence requires that we know our Bibles. Oh, you may know John 3:16 by heart. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about knowing what it says as a whole. You see, the best way to interpret Scripture is with Scripture. What does Scripture say? What does it say about itself? What do New Testament authors say about Old Testament passages and principles? The more you know, the clearer you can be. The clearer you can be, the more confident you can be.
It doesn't stop there. You should know about the cultures of biblical times. You should at least have access to the language of the times. Good Bible reference material is easy to come by, one of the positive side effects of the Internet. You should have your feet in historical writings as well. What did the Church Fathers believe? What has the Church taught through history? Modern teachers are fine and dandy and many of us have good input there, but limiting yourself to the latest might blind you to the historic, and if Christianity is true and the Holy Spirit really has led His people into all truth, you will find the greatest confidence if you agree with the rest of Christendom.
So, after all of this is piled up, what do you have? No more questions? Of course not. Absolute certainty on all issues? Don't be silly. Here's what you'll find. You'll find that a vast majority of Scripture lines up with Scripture lines up with culture lines up with language lines up with what the Holy Spirit is saying to you lines up with history lines up with teachers lines up with your understanding ... a solid stack of agreement. I suspect it is far more than most would realize. Does everyone agree on all this? No, of course not. There are tares among the wheat, antichrists who "went out from us", wolves among the sheep, false teachers, and bold enemies of the Gospel. But I have found on a good portion of biblical text there is a great deal of agreement. On those hills I am willing to die. On those points I have no problem saying, "Thus saith the Lord." Other stuff won't be quite so solidly stacked. I choose to take a less firm stance when my pile isn't so big. There are notions and beliefs I hold that I simply won't debate. I don't have the confidence on them that I do on the others. That's okay. Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.
I simply am not willing to admit that God intended His people to be deaf, dumb, and blind. I don't believe that the Holy Spirit was incapable of teaching His own over all the years. I don't buy into a false humility that says, "Well, God said it, but I don't want to seem arrogant in agreeing with Him." It is my suspicion that most errors are not due to a lack of biblical clarity, but a lack of Christian diligence. Perhaps that is a worse sin than certainty ever was.
Study to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).
25 comments:
Stan,
I have been working through this very thing quite a bit lately. In my mind I cannot shake the illustration of a situation with my wife. We have been married for a long time (well only 11 years but with the averages the way they are now...) and we talk daily. She has said many times how she feels about our family and the direction we should go. What if we are at a gathering and I am asked, with her right beside me, are you two sure homeschooling is the right choice for your family? Suppose I said something like, "Well I believe our family is led to homeschool for reasons A, B, C and D. My guess is my wife agrees, she has told me so in the past but I don't want to be so arrogant as to assume to have infinite knowledge about her thoughts on the matter." I can only think I would get a look of complete disbelief. "What do you mean you're not sure? We've been married 11 years and spoken about it many times. All you have to do is repeat what i've already said."
If we are commanded to be perfect, to be holy, to be obedient and to love God and then others more than ourselves, are endwelled and empowered by the Holy Spirit and have a desire to know a Lord who is the Word, I cannot envision a set of circumstances where we would be left on our own to make guesses and hope that we are right until we face the judgement. Am I not supposed to know my Lord better than I know my wife? With how much more grief would I experience to hear the Lord that I love say "What did you mean you weren't sure? I wrote it all down for you, gave you all the tools and faculties and you have the Spirit for common verification."
It is hard to study, to be diligent in absorbing as much material as possible and making a stand for biblical Truth and its internal constancy and agreement - but no one suggested the road would be easy. I've read somewhere that disciple is never pleasant at first but it produces a harvest of righteousness. I'll just take that as Truth just as well and commit to living in confidence not ambiguity. On the Word I take my stand, I can do no other.
Thanks, Stan and be of good courage. Fight the good fight, keep the faith, finish the race. Run with boldness and confidence as you have not been given a spirit of fear but of sonship and the true humility that your confidence is not in yourself or your own efforts but in the Word and the Spirit that is working in and through you in accordance with His good purposes for His glory.
Come on, Jeremy, you made that last paragraph up, didn't you? Okay, just kidding. I recognized the smattering of verses from here and there.
One minor point. I cannot begin to imagine that I should know the Lord (He is infinite; I am finite) better than I know my wife. ;)
It would be impossible to live as God commands if we did not have confidence in our belief in those commands. If we all thought we could be wrong, then how could we live like we think we should, if we think we might be wrong about it?
David...
If we all thought we could be wrong, then how could we live like we think we should, if we think we might be wrong about it?
Humbly and by faith?
Stan,
When I wrote, "Am I not supposed to know my Lord better than I know my wife?" I was thinking of a surety of relationship not of a full knowledge of being. Sorry for any confusion, but thanks for the clarification and warranted correction.
Blessings.
Dan Trabue: "Humbly and by faith?"
Let's see how this works. "I can't -- no, must not be sure I know what God wants me to do or think or believe. That would be arrogance. That would be sin. So, not knowing at all, I should ... humbly and by faith proceed to do what I haven't any reason to be confident I should do."
That works for you?
And that's without a thought about the number of places we are told we can know things in Scripture. Dirty rotten liars.
"By faith"...hmmm, doesn't that statement assume confidence? Our faith, our hope, is in something sure. We can know things with confidence. Like you said Stan, the Scriptures tell us we can know things. I'd hate to live wondering, guessing what Scripture means. That'd be like God saying "I'm holding the answer in one of my hands (both hands behind his back). Guess which one is correct, the left hand or the right." "oops, sorry wrong guess!"
Dan, so all those prophets that spoke "Thus saith the Lord" boldly and confidently were wrong to do so? Confidence and faith work hand in hand, so I have no idea what you mean by "humbly and by faith". If you don't confidently believe the things you believe, why bother living by that belief? If you're not sure, then let bygones be bygones and stop debating with people, since there is no confidence in belief. Being humble doesn't mean not be confident. The opposite of humble is proud, not confident.
Confidence and faith work hand in hand, so I have no idea what you mean by "humbly and by faith".
Clearly.
I have confidence. I believe I have a very good handle on what God's Ways are as revealed in the Bible and as lived and taught by Jesus and as revealed by the Holy Spirit and as written on our hearts. I'm generally pretty confident in my positions. They are logical, moral, biblical and, I think, clearly Godly. There is much evidence to support that conclusion.
I'm making a distinction between confidence and certainty. I am confident in my positions, but am I infallible and incapable of being mistaken? No, clearly I'm not.
That is, after all, a biblical and logical teaching.
I'm arguing against certainty, not against confidence.
Perhaps we can agree on this?
I think the bible and all of God's revelation is quite clear on many, many positions. And yet, I think I COULD be mistaken. I don't think I am, but I acknowledge that MY interpretations and opinions are prone to error.
Do you do the same?
If so, then we are in agreement.
If not, if you are saying there are issues on which YOUR UNDERSTANDING can not be mistaken, I think you are counting way too much on your understanding.
What say ye, men?
Are you comfortable with the reality of our position of being confident in our positions while admitting we could be mistaken?
Again, a failure to communicate due to a shifting meaning of words. Merriam-Webster defines "confidence" as "the quality or state of being certain". So "I'm arguing against certainty, not against confidence" is not a sentence that makes sense to me. (Obviously, then, the rest of the comment in which you try to differentiate between "confidence" and "certainty" won't make sense to me either.)
When John says, "These things have I written unto you that you may know that you have eternal life", was he aspiring for confidence or certainty? It sounds like certainty. Would you suggest that this is a wrong thing to aim at?
Stan...
Again, a failure to communicate due to a shifting meaning of words.
Indeed, Merriam Webster's SECOND definition includes the notion of being certain. But MW's first definitions read like this...
1a : a feeling or consciousness of one's powers or of reliance on one's circumstances
b : faith or belief that one will act in a right, proper, or effective way
In the sense of having FAITH or A BELIEF that one will act in a right way, I'm fine with that as a biblically sound and rationally plausible position to hold as a fallible human being.
But being INCAPABLE of one's opinion's about points that are UNPROVABLE, that seems to me to be stepping beyond confidence into what I would call arrogance and a rejection of the humility due a fallen human being.
So, given MW's FIRST definition of the word, does that not make sense to you, Stan? Do you truly believe your opinions are INCAPABLE of being mistaken on some points?
If so, on which points are you incapable of being wrong? And on what would you base this? Where in the Bible or in real world logic is there a list of positions that says "You CAN NOT be mistaken on this point..."?
And, if one CAN NOT be mistaken on those points and I have read the Bible seeking God's will and reached a conclusion, does that mean I, too, am incapable of being mistaken?
It doesn't seem like you can hold to the position for yourself unless you hold to it for everyone.
Stan...
When John says, "These things have I written unto you that you may know that you have eternal life", was he aspiring for confidence or certainty? It sounds like certainty. Would you suggest that this is a wrong thing to aim at?
I'd say clearly he was aspiring for confidence, not certainty. Do I think having confidence in my understanding is wrong? No. Do I think saying, "I can NOT be mistaken in my opinions..." is what John was shooting for? No. Not when the real world evidence of my own ability to be mistaken in my opinions is so clearly demonstrable.
But if I were to allow that we might FEEL confident - certain even - that faith in Jesus saves us, John has noted that one point specifically. Do you have a list of biblical positions on OTHER issues that God tells us that we can NOT be mistaken. Paul assures us that we see as through a glass darkly, that we understand ONLY IN PART now, here on earth. And again, Paul asks rhetorically in Romans 11, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are God's judgments, and God's paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord?"
We are fallible, flawed human beings with imperfect, although God-given, reasoning capacity. We can always bet on our ability to be mistaken in our opinions. While we may feel confident in our understanding on God's grace and salvation, the Bible makes no such claims about our ability in other areas to be incapable of being mistaken. Not that I know of, anyway.
Do you have any rational or biblical support beyond the knowledge of our salvation that suggests we CAN NOT be mistaken in our opinions and interpretations?
If not, I would suggest humility on these other issues, even while we may feel confident in the FIRST definition of the word. Humility should lead the way.
I can't be mistaken on that point, my friends...
Right. So a person who says, "Listen, the Bible says 'for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination', so I believe that 'for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination' and must live under that conviction" would be arrogant in standing there. "No," you would tell him, "you're wrong!" "So," he would respond humbly, "if the clear texts of Scripture cannot be understood as clear texts of Scripture, what can we know?" And you would suggest, "You can't know anything. You can only believe ... and don't be sure."
"But," the conversation would continue, "John said we could know we have eternal life." "Yes, yes," you would reply, "but clearly by 'know' he meant 'believe' and not actually know in any sense of the word."
Look, here are some biblical examples. God told Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs" (Gen 15:13). We would suggest that Abram be less than certain. It is, after all, a prophecy, not necessarily a certainty. "I mean, after all, Abe, you may have misunderstood God. Maybe it was a bit of undigested dinner. Get real, man." Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar of the dream he had, "The dream is certain and its interpretation sure" (Dan 2:45). Really? A dream and its interpretation are sure? Talk about arrogant! Paul wrote, "For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5) to which you have responded, "No, you cannot be sure of that." When Paul said, "And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6), we would need to correct him to "pretty confident" but not "sure". Peter made a patently foolish command when he urged his readers to "make your calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:10) because "certainty" is a stupid and arrogant place to stand, Pete. And, look, you may think you stand on sure ground because Paul assured us that "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:38-39), but since being sure or certain is arrogance and arrogance is not a Christian virtue, you must not be certain that you can never be separated from the love of God in Christ. That would be evil.
In other words, both the Bible and I disagree with you.
Look, I understand that I could be wrong. As I said in the post, "I am human. I am imperfect. I could be wrong. Worse, I have been wrong." I went on to affirm that I believe that even people whom I respect and admire are likely wrong in some spot or another. I get all that. To deny that would be arrogant (and, after all I've said, dishonest). I'm not saying, "Be certain; you can't be wrong." I'm saying that I have to operate on certainty with the background fact that I might be wrong. I'm saying that the Bible presents itself as the Word of God, something immensely reliable. To say, "Yeah, well, too bad God's not so good at explaining Himself" would be an affront to God (and an absolutely arrogant position to take). So I recognize I'm doing my best and I operate with due diligence and I use every available tool I can muster and I go with what I know. I recognize what I don't know and don't stand too strongly there.
Look, let me put it another way. You object to "Thus saith the Lord". "You can't say that your interpretation is God's intent." I respond with the opposite. If my interpretation is not God's intent, on what basis should I operate? "No, it's not God's words. It's just mine. As such, there is no force, no authority, no reality behind this stuff. It is, in the final analysis, just my opinion, just my belief. To live my life by my opinion is fine but not compelling. Believe what you want. Please, go and sin to your heart's content as long as you believe it's okay and I'll keep silent watching you burn yourself to the ground because that is the loving, humble thing to do." Sorry. Can't go there. Can't even see it as "good".
Stan...
I'm saying that I have to operate on certainty with the background fact that I might be wrong.
Okay, I wouldn't put it that way, but as long as you're acknowledging you might be wrong, that you are entirely capable of being mistaken in your opinions and interpretations, that is what I'm saying. It would appear, then, that we agree.
We can act with confidence in our positions, but we must keep the humility intact with the knowledge that OUR opinions can be wrong.
If that's what you're saying, we can agree.
Stan...
I'm saying that the Bible presents itself as the Word of God, something immensely reliable.
Again, I mostly agree (I'd quibble on "the Bible presents itself" part, but agree that it is immensely reliable. I have NO problems with the Bible. My problems are with people's INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible.)
Stan...
To say, "Yeah, well, too bad God's not so good at explaining Himself" would be an affront to God (and an absolutely arrogant position to take).
And here again, I would agree. I have never said that God is not so good at explaining God's Self. I DO think that humans are prone to misunderstand God's clear words, though. You apparently do, too, since you often think I'm wrong. Right?
Stan...
You object to "Thus saith the Lord". "You can't say that your interpretation is God's intent."
That is correct on that point. It is my position to say it is arrogant to say "Thus saith the Lord," about OUR interpretations. It is hubris of immense proportions. It is a profaning of God's words and an usurption of God's role by mere petty mortals.
Stan...
I respond with the opposite. If my interpretation is not God's intent, on what basis should I operate?
On the humble basis of our best understanding, recognizing that we are finite and see only as through a glass darkly. You know, like the Bible says clearly.
Stan...
"No, it's not God's words. It's just mine. As such, there is no force, no authority, no reality behind this stuff.
I don't see why you'd have to go there. I don't NEED to "know" that the Bible agrees with me that it is wrong to kill, kidnap or rape children. It is obvious to our own God-given reasoning. It is self-evident. I would stand STRONGLY against someone trying to harm a child and there would PLENTY of force behind my position. Nearly an entire world of people would stand in agreement with me. That IS force, that IS authority, that IS reality.
While you may think that I don't value our interpretations of the Bible enough, it seems to me that you do not value our interpretations on God's Word written upon our hearts and upon the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the world. People can and do take rational real world stances with authority all the time without having a written note from God to back up that opinion.
In the end, though, it doesn't seem like we really disagree, except maybe as a matter of degrees and emphasis. We AGREE that there exists in the Bible and logic no list of behaviors or interpretations on which we can't be mistaken. It IS a matter of opinion. We may have what we consider well-considered opinions that give us confidence to stand behind them with authority, but they remain our opinions and in our opinions, we ARE capable of being mistaken.
So, hurrah, then. We appear to agree.
Yes?
Stan, regarding this...
You object to "Thus saith the Lord". "You can't say that your interpretation is God's intent."
I wonder how you balance this with your free acknowledgement that you ARE entirely capable of being mistaken. Given that you MIGHT be mistaken, on points where the Lord has NOT said thus, do you not find it a bit presumptuous to say, "On this point, I can't be mistaken, God DOES say thusly (with "thusly" being YOUR opinion...)"?
In other words, are you saying, "Here is MY OPINION about behavior X - it is BAD. God has not offered an opinion on behavior X, but based on what the Bible does say, it is MY OPINION that Behavior X is BAD. I'm so certain of my position on Behavior X, that I would venture to say I can NOT be mistaken. Further, I am so confident in my position on Behavior X, that I'm certain MY OPINION is the same as God's. So, even though God has offered no specific opinion on Behavior X, you can trust ME, STAN SMITH: God does not like Behavior X. Thus saith the Lord!"... Is that something akin to what you're saying? If so, does that not sound to you a bit presumptuous?
I would never conflate my opinion on behaviors with God's, because that would seem to come too close to blasphemy for my sake to want to go there.
Dan Trabue: "I don't NEED to 'know' that the Bible agrees with me that it is wrong to kill ..."
Well, again, we have a different basis of authority. Your "authority" for faith and practice is "it is wrong to do what I consider it wrong to do" and if Scripture disagrees, well, we'll have to figure out how to read Scripture so it doesn't. Killing isn't wrong because God said it was. Killing is wrong on its own. Ergo, if God says to kill, God would be wrong. I, on the other hand, operate from a sola scriptura position that says that Scripture alone is the authority in matters of faith and practice. It is not conscience or my moral certitude that God and the Bible must meet.
You "value our interpretations on God's Word written upon our hearts and upon the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the world". I believe that Natural Man "is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" and "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." It is my studied opinion that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick." I think that God's opinion is "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength." But, hey, that's just me, right? Still, you believe that those things you listed (I assume it's a start-up list, not a comprehensive one) are "wrong". What you don't have is any reason to assume that anyone else should think them wrong since it is only your own (admittedly questionable) opinion. (Read Peace Child sometime. The missionaries there found people who highly valued deception. If you could deceive your enemies into trusting you so you could kill them, you were a hero. Your conscientious "It's wrong to kill" wouldn't have gone over with them at all.)
Dan Trabue: "do you not find it a bit presumptuous to say, 'On this point, I can't be mistaken ...'?"
Wow, that's a really , really hard question to answer. It's hard to answer because I've never said it. I've never once stated (in any form) "I can't be mistaken." Here's what I have said in the past. I've said things like, "God has stated that it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman. On that basis I conclude that God holds that it's an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman. Thus, to argue for the morality of 'same-sex marriage' makes no sense at all." I have said, "The Bible describes marriage repeatedly and consistently. There are no deviations in its presentation of the definition of marriage. Not one. Therefore, I conclude that God's definition of marriage is ..."
And what I said earlier was that "I recognize what I don't know and don't stand too strongly there." The converse is equally true. The longer I've looked with the more Scripture to read and the more contextual support and more rational consideration and the largest number of reliable teachers who agree and the most consistent historical data that agrees gives me the greatest amount of confidence. I don't hold that marriage is the union of a man and a woman because my culture says so. I don't make that argument because I feel it's right. I make it based on Scripture supported by Scripture backed with Bible teachers recent and historical and the entire history of mankind as well as the Church behind it. You suggest "God has not offered an opinion about that" and I think He clearly and repeatedly and continually has. My opinion? At this point I think we're way beyond that.
How much clearer does "Thus saith the Lord" have to be? When the Bible is clear on something, it's clear. No interpretation issues. When a person tries to make clear Biblical statements "unclear" or "open to many interpretations" that person is either deceived himself or trying to intentionally deceive others. Either way, it is a dangerous game to play. Embrace the truth.
Acts 20:29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
Stan...
I make it based on Scripture supported by Scripture backed with Bible teachers recent and historical and the entire history of mankind as well as the Church behind it.
To be clear, Stan, you do it based upon YOUR UNDERSTANDING and YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture, along with tradition and cultural tradition. Agreed? It's not like Scripture says to you, "Stan, THIS AND ONLY THIS is the right way to understand this..." You interpret. I interpret. It's what we do when we read.
Agreed?
Stan...
You suggest "God has not offered an opinion about that" and I think He clearly and repeatedly and continually has. My opinion? At this point I think we're way beyond that.
But factually, Stan, it IS YOUR OPINION. God factually has not offered a position on that topic. It. has. not. happened. Rather, you have extrapolated a position based upon YOUR REASONING. The error is, then, in conflating THAT OPINION with God's Word.
No one is criticizing you for reaching an opinion, you're welcome to it. I certainly shared it for a long time. The criticism comes rationally and biblically when a mere human conflates THEIR OPINION with God's Word and makes claims of it not being possible for them to be mistaken. And whether or not you have made such claims, your comrades certainly have.
IF Stan is reasoning this position out, and factually you are, THEN Stan is the one with the opinion. For Stan (or anyone) to then say, "And my opinion is GOD'S OPINION, I speak for God on this point," THAT is hubris, arrogance and near-blasphemy, if not outright blasphemy.
The distinction is, we ought to be clear about what is OUR opinion - and OUR opinions are prone to error and, thus, we CAN NOT RATIONALLY or BIBLICALLY say it can't be mistaken or that it is one in the same with God's opinion - and what is God's Word.
As to your authority concerns, I'm just using standard English understanding of the word "authority." You appear to want to make only ONE THING (ie, your interpretation of God's Will) to be the one acceptable authority. I'm recognizing that authority can come from many sources. Of course, ultimately, God is the final authority.
I'm just suggesting that if the Bible and history teach us nothing else, it is we must need be very wary of any mere mortals who pretend to speak for God as if they have the "one true authority."
Ah, we're going down this path again. Fine. Feel free. You may. I won't.
Since all Bible reading is "interpretation" and, therefore, "opinion", then we have no "Thus saith the Lord" at all. None of us have God speaking in our ears audibly so that Anonymous can hear it (because that's his big complaint). It wouldn't really matter if we did because we would still be receiving language, interpreting it, then restating it as we understood it ... likely wrong. And even with that, no one would likely believe it. All truth is relative. God has said nothing. All we have is OPINION.
Dan, feel free to hang there with that. Feel free to hold that view. Feel free to beat that drum. Just stop doing it here. You arguments lead to the only possible conclusion that all our statements of truth are, essentially, opinion, and then you have the audacity to call my opinion (your opinion of what I'm doing here) "hubris, arrogance, and near-blasphemy if not outright blasphemy." How dare you say such a thing about my opinion simply based on your opinion? How dare you carry such loud-mouthed arrogance into my room? You've built your version of good and evil based on your opinion of right and wrong that your version of God has to agree to and you've decided that your version of morality is right and everyone else's is wrong and if we disagree with you with any sort of authority you will judge us and authoritatively regale us with how judgmental and arrogant we are.
Dan, you exhibit what psychologists call "insanity" ("You have an opinion and I have an opinion and we shouldn't be hard over on opinions and anyone who disagrees with my opinion on this is evil!") and what the Bible calls "a debased mind". Please don't bother stopping by here again. You've heard the Gospel. You've heard the need to repent. You've heard the call. Until you decide to accept it, your confusion and disruption will only disturb God's flock. And I'm quite sure, since this is my opinion and you believe we should all hold to our opinions as well as respect others, that you'll agree to honor my request.
In all the time Stan has been writing this blog, I'm pretty sure he hasn't said "Thus saith the Lord" on any topic that is not clearly presented in Scripture (I doubt he's even said that outside of a quote from Scripture itself). During this debate on this particular string, every reference made to "Thus saith the Lord" has been to Biblical characters that have said that, and yet some how Dan attributes those words to Stan.
It's kind of sad, Stan believes there is much we can be confident in, where Dan believes there is little we can be confident in. How weak must your faith in the Holy Spirit be to hold such a flimsy grasp on those things God has shown to His people? I think that is the huge point you are missing Dan, we are not confident because we have come to these beliefs ourselves, we are confident because we believe that the Spirit has led us into Truth. This Truth is not "provable" because it is a supernatural Truth, and those not led by the Spirit cannot believe because they are stuck in the flesh. I can say these things confidently because the Bible clearly says them repeatedly, and my faith believes that the Spirit has led me true. To not be confident ("certain" as you'd put it Dan) in ones beliefs would make one a luke warm Christian, necessarily. One cannot live by ones beliefs if one is not certain those beliefs are true, thus they must partially live by those beliefs, not living boldly by faith. Humility has its place in all of this, surely. When one finds one has been wrong in ones certainty, humility allows them to correct themself. But to live without certainty is foolish.
On a side note, I have decided I don't like words like "attribute". One word with multiple tenses without changing the word is annoying in the written word.
To be fair, David, Dan believes in "confidence", just not "certainty". He has a great deal of confidence in His own beliefs but does not believe we should be certain about them.
Confident -- full of conviction; certain. Mirriam-Webster
Certainty -- 1) the firm conviction that something is the case. 2) The quality of being reliably true. Google search
also -- the quality or state of being certain especially on the basis of evidence Mirriam-Webster
or -- free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure (Random House Dictionary
From Thesaurus.com, "certain" is defined as "confident" including such synonymns as "assured" and "believing". Antonymns -- to not be certain -- include "uncertain", "doubtful", "unsure", and "unconfident".
Aristotle advised that we should not demand more certainty than the subject allows (Nichomachean Ethics, I, iii.). There are, therefore, levels of certainty, including one we would call "absolute certainty" -- "cannot be wrong." Absolute certainty may be beyond the reach of the fallible human, but relative certainty is not. Even so-called "facts" may be only of relative certainty. Since our grasp of facts is based on sense perception, we should not claim to know any facts with infallible certainty. On the other hand, the more evidence we accrue, the more relative certainty we can bring to bear.
This dispute over "certainty" 1) ignores the dictionary definition of certainty, 2) ignores the biblical call to be sure and to know, and 3) assumes either absolute or no certainty at all. Me? Since the dictionary equates "confidence" with "certainty" and since the Bible says there are things we can know, things of which we can be sure (such as whether or not we have eternal life), I will continue to stand with certainty on the position that holds that we can and should have certainty in our beliefs, even when tempered with the lack of absolute, infallible, "I cannot be wrong" certainty.
Post a Comment