Narrow is the way of life and few find it

[Holy999]

Transform into a holy person

 

[BruceLeiter]

@Holy999, we are already perfectly-holy in God our Judge's sight because of Jesus' holiness, but we need to run the race in our daily lives like Paul toward the prize of perfect holiness at our bodily resurrection:


Php 3:8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
Php 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—
Php 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
Php 3:11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
Php 3:12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
Php 3:13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
Php 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

 

[Frankj]

It would be an interesting to discuss Jesus speaking of the wide and narrow gate and the roads leading to them, particularly in relation to the numbers that follow each and how to know the difference if we are on the wrong one without knowing it.

I sort of suspect that many or maybe even most of those calling themselves Christian today may find themselves on the Wide one while believing they are on the narrow one (and I don't exempt myself from this possibility, I spend significant time pondering it).

 

[BruceLeiter]

It would be an interesting to discuss Jesus speaking of the wide and narrow gate and the roads leading to them, particularly in relation to the numbers that follow each and how to know the difference if we are on the wrong one without knowing it.

I sort of suspect that many or maybe even most of those calling themselves Christian today may find themselves on the Wide one while believing they are on the narrow one (and I don't exempt myself from this possibility, I spend significant time pondering it).

Here is the context of Jesus' reference to the wide and narrow gates. Jesus says that the wide gate is "easy" and that it has many people entering it who do not follow the "golden rule" of verse 12. The people going through both gates are recognized by their actions done in humble service through trust in personal knowledge of Jesus:

Mat 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Mat 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Mat 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Mat 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Mat 7:25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
Mat 7:26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
Mat 7:27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

 

[VeritatisVerba]

It would be an interesting to discuss Jesus speaking of the wide and narrow gate and the roads leading to them, particularly in relation to the numbers that follow each and how to know the difference if we are on the wrong one without knowing it.

I sort of suspect that many or maybe even most of those calling themselves Christian today may find themselves on the Wide one while believing they are on the narrow one (and I don't exempt myself from this possibility, I spend significant time pondering it).

That would indeed be an interesting discussion!

Care to offer an answer?

I know the answer and will offer it (in general terms) but I'm curious to know how you'd propose to know whether one's doctrine is correct or not?

By what means are we to discern truth from error? Is it a feeling? Does God raise the hair on the back of our neck when we've found the truth? Does a dove come a light upon our shoulder when we've accepted proper theology?
Who's right; the Baptist or the Presbyterian; the Calvinist or the Catholic; Hal Lindsey or R.C. Sproul?
Maybe they're all wrong! How can we know?


Is there any objective means to KNOW with certainty that the doctrine you've accepted is correct?

 

[Frankj]

That would indeed be an interesting discussion!

Care to offer an answer?

I know the answer and will offer it (in general terms) but I'm curious to know how you'd propose to know whether one's doctrine is correct or not?

By what means are we to discern truth from error? Is it a feeling? Does God raise the hair on the back of our neck when we've found the truth? Does a dove come a light upon our shoulder when we've accepted proper theology?
Who's right; the Baptist or the Presbyterian; the Calvinist or the Catholic; Hal Lindsey or R.C. Sproul?
Maybe they're all wrong! How can we know?


Is there any objective means to KNOW with certainty that the doctrine you've accepted is correct?

I'll answer that later, I seemed to have developed a problem with my browser or the site since I cannot format at all and that makes my post one giant paragraph which is difficult (at best) to understand

 

[Frankj]

That would indeed be an interesting discussion!

Care to offer an answer?

I know the answer and will offer it (in general terms) but I'm curious to know how you'd propose to know whether one's doctrine is correct or not?

By what means are we to discern truth from error? Is it a feeling? Does God raise the hair on the back of our neck when we've found the truth? Does a dove come a light upon our shoulder when we've accepted proper theology?
Who's right; the Baptist or the Presbyterian; the Calvinist or the Catholic; Hal Lindsey or R.C. Sproul?
Maybe they're all wrong! How can we know?


Is there any objective means to KNOW with certainty that the doctrine you've accepted is correct?

Objectively would require a legalistic standard, and that is more of a balance sheet sort of thing (which can be useful) than an understanding in your heart, which is subjective by nature, and is where the Holy Spirit will be found.

One would think that strict adherence to all Biblical laws and teachings would tell this, but that brings up the question of motive. Is perfect adherence to the law sufficient to be on the narrow path even if its actual -subjective- motive is vanity of ego to appear righteous before others?

This is what the Pharisees of Jesus time often did, and Jesus directly addressed that (which made him somewhat unpopular among them).

I would say that if you find the world approving of how you are living in it, you might seriously consider that you might be on the wrong path.

A hint can be gained from 2:Corinthians 6:17 "Wherefore: Go out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing".

Are you in your activities touching the unclean thing? And what does that exactly mean so you will know that you are doing it when you do (this is where the objective comes in) and why do you want to do it if you are (this is where the subjective reveals the road you are on)?

Another hint can be found in Colossians 3:2 "Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth." which sets a standard of detachment from the things of the world to dedicated attachment to the things of God instead.

This are, of course, many other things that could be mentioned, but what is important is that we actually practice this in all that we do, in every decision we make and every action we take. The important thing is to do it, not just understand why you should.

Would like to hear what others say as well, I can only directly know the part of the Elephant I'm touching and have to learn the rest from those touching other parts.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Objectively would require a legalistic standard, and that is more of a balance sheet sort of thing (which can be useful) than an understanding in your heart, which is subjective by nature, and is where the Holy Spirit will be found.

One would think that strict adherence to all Biblical laws and teachings would tell this, but that brings up the question of motive. Is perfect adherence to the law sufficient to be on the narrow path even if its actual -subjective- motive is vanity of ego to appear righteous before others?

This is what the Pharisees of Jesus time often did, and Jesus directly addressed that (which made him somewhat unpopular among them).

I would say that if you find the world approving of how you are living in it, you might seriously consider that you might be on the wrong path.

A hint can be gained from 2:Corinthians 6:17 "Wherefore: Go out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing".

Are you in your activities touching the unclean thing? And what does that exactly mean so you will know that you are doing it when you do (this is where the objective comes in) and why do you want to do it if you are (this is where the subjective reveals the road you are on)?

Another hint can be found in Colossians 3:2 "Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth." which sets a standard of detachment from the things of the world to dedicated attachment to the things of God instead.

This are, of course, many other things that could be mentioned, but what is important is that we actually practice this in all that we do, in every decision we make and every action we take. The important thing is to do it, not just understand why you should.

Would like to hear what others say as well, I can only directly know the part of the Elephant I'm touching and have to learn the rest from those touching other parts.

I cannot say that I see how anything you wrote actually addresses the question of how we know whether our doctrine is correct.

I also reject the notion that the condition of a person's heart is "subjective by nature." If that were true, then God could not judge justly. That idea also appears to contradict what you rightly affirmed in another thread, where you correctly insisted that right and wrong are objective and universally applicable. You can't have it both ways.

In any case, I believe you are overthinking the answer to your own question.

Martin Luther was on the right track when he appealed to "Scripture and plain reason." I would express it slightly differently. We can know, (meaning know with absolute certainty), whether our doctrine is correct or incorrect by applying sound reason and the plain reading of Scripture - in that order.

In fact, much of what we call doctrine can be known by the proper use of our minds alone. This is confirmed by Scripture itself:

Romans 1:18–20 (NKJV)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.​

Our knowledge, however, is limited, and we are prone to error. Therefore, God wrote us a book. That book reveals many truths we could not have discovered otherwise. It also confirms many truths we can arrive at through reason. Without revelation, we can still know that God is personal, intelligent, rational, relational, wise, and just. However, we could not know the gospel, the details of creation, or the existence of angels and demons, etc. apart from what He has revealed in scripture.

To whatever extent a doctrine is irrational, it is false. This is not an opinion, it is a definitional truth. There is no such thing as an irrational truth. That principle is the foundation of ALL knowledge, including theological knowledge. If we reject it, then we destroy the possibility of knowing anything at all. If nothing can be falsified, then everything is possible, which mean nothing can be known.

This principle must be accepted. It is not possible to reject it without affirming it in the very act of denial. Every truth claim presupposes the validity of reason. Even the person who claims to reject reason is still attempting to make a coherent argument, which means he is relying on the very rationality he is trying to deny by utterly the first intelligible syllable of the denial.

This principle is not merely consistent with Scripture. It is the foundation upon which the credibility of Scripture depends. The Bible is one long continuous truth claim. To believe that it is true, one must first accept that truth exists and that it is knowable. Truth, by definition, is that which is consistent with itself and with reality. That is what it means for something to be rational; that's what is meant when we say that something is true.

As for Scripture, it is important to emphasize that I refer to the "plain reading of Scripture". The field of hermeneutics, which is the study of how Scripture is to be interpreted, includes various schools of thought. The real question is which interpretive method is superior. That, however, is simply a rephrasing of the same question we began with: How can we know what is true? And the answer is the same. The superior interpretive method is the one that is most objectively true. That is, it is the one most consistent with sound reason and the plain meaning of the text itself.

 

[Frankj]

You're just being contentious, lets talk about something practical.

When you, say, look for a job and are given a terrific offer from a company that you know supports causes that violate Christian principles do you take the offer or turn it down and take a much lower paying job at a different low paying company while asking yourself why you ever applied at the other company in the first place?

Or you're working at a very good high paying job at a company that decides to go 'woke' and fill openings with proud sexual deviants and require you to support them by addressing by perverted pronouns and such while hiding all evidence of your Christianity or talking about it because it would make them uncomfortable. Do you go along with it because you are an older person trying to cope with a heavy mortgage and healthcare payment and know the best you will find anywhere else will be 1/3 or 1/2 the amount you make now and with less benefits or do you "touch the unclean thing" and go along with those things you are now faced with that force you to violate your Christian beliefs? (this is a real life situation a friend of mine is in.)

Many more real life things like this need discussing, and should always be at the top of a Christians mind.

Care to tell what you would do and why, and maybe give examples from your own experience of this?

 

[VeritatisVerba]

You're just being contentious, lets talk about something practical.

I am totally not being contentious at all!

Look. if you cannot prevent yourself from trying to read my mind, you and I will not get along.

Your desire to run from what I've said only communicates your disagreement with it and your own unwillingness to think it through.

Why are people on web forums so afraid that they might actually learn something from someone their interacting with? Why is anything that isn't what they've always heard reacted to with such hostility? I'll tell you this - it says a Hell of a lot more about you than it does me!

When you, say, look for a job and are given a terrific offer from a company that you know supports causes that violate Christian principles do you take the offer or turn it down and take a much lower paying job at a different low paying company while asking yourself why you ever applied at the other company in the first place?

The immoral actions of others do not reflect on my moral standing.

Or you're working at a very good high paying job at a company that decides to go 'woke' and fill openings with proud sexual deviants and require you to support them by addressing by perverted pronouns and such while hiding all evidence of your Christianity or talking about it because it would make them uncomfortable.

Homosexuality is a capital crime (biblically speaking). It is far worse than the company you work for supporting this or that political party. If I found myself in such a situation, I could choose to quit but I'd more likely continue to do my job to the best of my ability but would refuse to pretend or help perverts pretend that they are normal by allowing them to tell me how I have to speak. I would refer to men as men and to women as women. My employer may choose to fire me but that (morally speaking) is on them.

Integrity means refusing to violate your own values (i.e. not someone else's), even if doing so “smooths things over” in a work setting. If your employer’s actions conflict with your principles, you have no moral burden to stay but if you can stay without violating your values then your employer's actions do not transfer to you based on your need to make a living.

In short, we should deal with people in the following hierarchical manner...

1. Our own welfare and that of our family is of the utmost importance and priority.
2. We should impose as strong a taboo on immoral behavior as we are able.
3. We should advocate for laws which uphold righteousness and justice.

Each of those three have a wider and wider reach and so should be place in that order. We are first and foremost concerned with our own lives and that of our family. Those in our circle of influence come next and then the society as a whole.

If, I have to choose between my children going hungry and some pervert going to Hell, that's a easy decision for me. My kid eats.

1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.​

Do you go along with it because you are an older person trying to cope with a heavy mortgage and healthcare payment and know the best you will find anywhere else will be 1/3 or 1/2 the amount you make now and with less benefits or do you "touch the unclean thing" and go along with those things you are now faced with that force you to violate your Christian beliefs? (this is a real life situation a friend of mine is in.)

"Touch the unclean thing" is an interesting phrase. It and your previous post both seem to convey a very legalistic way of thinking.

If that observation is accurate, you'll find no way of dealing with your own hypothetical that doesn't leave you homeless and at the mercy of a society which despises you.

Many more real life things like this need discussing, and should always be at the top of a Christians mind.
Care to tell what you would do and why, and maybe give examples from your own experience of this?

Dealing with hypotheticals is a fun intellectual exercise but it is also the least effective and most inconsistent way of developing a code of ethics precisely because it is NOT objective. A proper code of ethics is based on objective truths and must be understood on the basis of broad rational moral precepts. There is an infinity of hypothetical situations. If you attempt to create a code of ethics based on them, you'll find yourself morally disarmed when the situation you didn't anticipate finds you. Situational ethics is necessarily incomplete and subjective by definition. Hypothetical situations are best used to test one's code of ethics, not to develop it.

 

[Frankj]

I am totally not being contentious at all!

Look. if you cannot prevent yourself from trying to read my mind, you and I will not get along.

Your desire to run from what I've said only communicates your disagreement with it and your own unwillingness to think it through.

Why are people on web forums so afraid that they might actually learn something from someone their interacting with? Why is anything that isn't what they've always heard reacted to with such hostility? I'll tell you this - it says a Hell of a lot more about you than it does me!


The immoral actions of others do not reflect on my moral standing.


Homosexuality is a capital crime (biblically speaking). It is far worse than the company you work for supporting this or that political party. If I found myself in such a situation, I could choose to quit but I'd more likely continue to do my job to the best of my ability but would refuse to pretend or help perverts pretend that they are normal by allowing them to tell me how I have to speak. I would refer to men as men and to women as women. My employer may choose to fire me but that (morally speaking) is on them.

Integrity means refusing to violate your own values (i.e. not someone else's), even if doing so “smooths things over” in a work setting. If your employer’s actions conflict with your principles, you have no moral burden to stay but if you can stay without violating your values then your employer's actions do not transfer to you based on your need to make a living.

In short, we should deal with people in the following hierarchical manner...

1. Our own welfare and that of our family is of the utmost importance and priority.
2. We should impose as strong a taboo on immoral behavior as we are able.
3. We should advocate for laws which uphold righteousness and justice.

Each of those three have a wider and wider reach and so should be place in that order. We are first and foremost concerned with our own lives and that of our family. Those in our circle of influence come next and then the society as a whole.

If, I have to choose between my children going hungry and some pervert going to Hell, that's a easy decision for me. My kid eats.

1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.​

"Touch the unclean thing" is an interesting phrase. It and your previous post both seem to convey a very legalistic way of thinking.

If that observation is accurate, you'll find no way of dealing with your own hypothetical that doesn't leave you homeless and at the mercy of a society which despises you.


Dealing with hypotheticals is a fun intellectual exercise but it is also the least effective and most inconsistent way of developing a code of ethics precisely because it is NOT objective. A proper code of ethics is based on objective truths and must be understood on the basis of broad rational moral precepts. There is an infinity of hypothetical situations. If you attempt to create a code of ethics based on them, you'll find yourself morally disarmed when the situation you didn't anticipate finds you. Situational ethics is necessarily incomplete and subjective by definition. Hypothetical situations are best used to test one's code of ethics, not to develop it.

We are in total disagreement, you seem to take a worldly view rather than a spiritual one that relies upon understanding words of a scripture but fails tp understand the scripture itself.

I do not compromise my beliefs even if it means being homeless and hungry, but the last time I put my trust in the Lord instead of faith to avoid having to compromise it over 40 years ago he never failed to make all I needed to avoid that and has continued to amaze me at how it was done.

I'm not a mind reader, but you might consider that what you write is the product of your mind and on full public display.

Let me ask, what part of your beliefs would you be unwilling to compromise if it meant extreme hardship or even brutal death for you if you did not?

Try to just give a direct answer, one that is actually coming from your deepest self if you are able to.

(btw, those were not hypotheticals, they were real world situations, one my own and one a close friend of mine. so how would you advise handling them with the narrow road being the utmost factor involved?)

 

[VeritatisVerba]

We are in total disagreement,

If you can refute a syllable of what I've said, I'd read it gladly!

you seem to take a worldly view rather than a spiritual one that relies upon understanding words of a scripture but fails tp understand the scripture itself.

How so?

What have I said that isn't either directly biblical or completely consistent with scripture?

I do not compromise my beliefs even if it means being homeless and hungry, but the last time I put my trust in the Lord instead of faith to avoid having to compromise it over 40 years ago he never failed to make all I needed to avoid that and has continued to amaze me at how it was done.

Well aren't you special!

How many Christians failed to have your degree of faith and ended up starving to death, with a bullet in their gut, chained in a dungeon, burned at the stake or with their heads removed?

To bad you weren't around to coach them all!

Sarcasm aside, the reason you've had your needs met in because you happen to live in the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen at a time in history where feeding you to lions is frowned upon.

I'm not a mind reader, but you might consider that what you write is the product of your mind and on full public display.

I always do! I reread my post. Your reaction to it is entirely irrational and unwarranted. I intentionally posted something you might find offensive above, just to give you a glimpse of what "contentiousness" looks like.

Let me ask, what part of your beliefs would you be unwilling to compromise if it meant extreme hardship or even brutal death for you if you did not?

Well, no one really knows that answer to that question for certain until their faced with having to live it. Fortunately, we live in a society where such decisions are unlikely in the extreme.

Having said that, no compromise of morality should be tolerated. As I stated when this discussion began, life is the standard of morality. Goodness leads to life, evil to death. In any compromise between life and death, only evil can profit.

That, however, does not mean that you have to go to your death in defense of every moral precept. The answer then to your question would depend on what was at stake. We do, after all, live in a evil world and have to make our way in it without, so far as it is up to us, becoming part of it. We fail and do so often. That's what grace is about.

Try to just give a direct answer, one that is actually coming from your deepest self if you are able to.

Life is the standard of morality, but I would kill you instantly and without regret if the alternative was my life or the life of any single one of my family members.

Does that answer your question?

(btw, those were not hypotheticals, they were real world situations, one my own and one a close friend of mine.

Is there anything objective about the way you think?
They were entirely hypotheticals! The fact that you experienced them doesn't mean that I have! DUH!

Sheesh! Talk about being contentious! Good grief!

so how would you advise handling them with the narrow road being the utmost factor involved?)

More legalism. The "narrow road" has to do with Jesus' teaching under the Mosaic law. There were very specific things one not only had to do but had to keep on doing under the law. That is no longer the case and so your question commits a category error.

Jews, for example, were not allowed to work for non-Jews. That sort of makes your hypothetical impossible. Not to mention the fact that any homosexual who showed up in Jerusalem would have been immediately stoned to death or run off of a cliff.

Further, my earlier response addresses this already. Today, if someone finds themselves in such a situation, they ought remember that their first obligation is not to make some grand moral gesture for the sake of his employer and the others that they work with but to their own family. If its a choice between you providing for your family and the perverts going to Hell, then burn baby burn! A precept that is CLEARLY taught in scripture - in case you missed it last time and are again tempted to think I'm being "wordly"...

1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.​

 

[BruceLeiter]

That would indeed be an interesting discussion!

Care to offer an answer?

I know the answer and will offer it (in general terms) but I'm curious to know how you'd propose to know whether one's doctrine is correct or not?

By what means are we to discern truth from error? Is it a feeling? Does God raise the hair on the back of our neck when we've found the truth? Does a dove come a light upon our shoulder when we've accepted proper theology?
Who's right; the Baptist or the Presbyterian; the Calvinist or the Catholic; Hal Lindsey or R.C. Sproul?
Maybe they're all wrong! How can we know?


Is there any objective means to KNOW with certainty that the doctrine you've accepted is correct?

@VeritatisVerba, the best way to know if a doctrine is true is to compare the Bible's passages that say similar ideas and to look at a church's beliefs and also compare them with the Bible's teachings in context. The Bible is God's inspired book, as it claims.

 

[Frankj]

@VeritatisVerba, the best way to know if a doctrine is true is to compare the Bible's passages that say similar ideas and to look at a church's beliefs and also compare them with the Bible's teachings in context. The Bible is God's inspired book, as it claims.

Ya know, the conversation was about someone can know, in real daily life, whether they are staying on the narrow road or going astray from it.

You seem to want to make this an intellectual exercise rather than a real world decision making one, discussing considerations someone would or should make in real life each day.

And you might examine how you are coming across in your responses and posts if you actually have an important message to present for people to make use of. being hostels and accusatory rather than civil generally works against productive conversation.

BTW, where do you find something like, say, Netflix in scripture?

 

[VeritatisVerba]

@VeritatisVerba, the best way to know if a doctrine is true is to compare the Bible's passages that say similar ideas and to look at a church's beliefs and also compare them with the Bible's teachings in context. The Bible is God's inspired book, as it claims.

Good policy. I suppose the point I'm making is that such comparisons are a rational process. (See post #8)

Sharpening iron with iron presupposes the existence of not just swords but the ability to wield them. Likewise, comparing a doctrine with scripture presupposes one's ability to understand what the doctrine teaches, to understand what the bible teaches and to detect when one is incompatible with the other.

It is precisely this process of reason that most Christian evade. They pick and choose which doctrines they like based on very nearly anything other than a dispassionate and objective evaluation of the rational precepts of whatever it is they're accepting. The proof of this is that there isn't a Christian alive on planet Earth that wouldn't at least claim to do just what you've proposed. Every flavor of Christian that exists all claim that their doctrine is biblical and they mean it! The most conservative, buttoned down collar Baptist and the most emotionally driven Assembly of God pastor BOTH would insist until they turn blue in the face and pass out that their doctrine is in line with what the bible teaches.

They cannot both be right and the bible, by itself (i.e. absent sound reason) cannot tell you which, or if either of them are right. Without sound reason, the bible can be made to teach anything you desire.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Ya know, the conversation was about someone can know, in real daily life, whether they are staying on the narrow road or going astray from it.

You seem to want to make this an intellectual exercise rather than a real world decision making one, discussing considerations someone would or should make in real life each day.

False dichotomy...

You cannot rightly do the latter (i.e. make real world decisions), without having done the former (i.e. done the intellectual word of formulating and integrating a moral code (a.k.a. a systematic theology).

And...

Making real world decisions is an intellectual exercise.

And...

All discussions on a web-forum are, by definition, an intellectual exercise.

And you might examine how you are coming across in your responses and posts if you actually have an important message to present for people to make use of. being hostels and accusatory rather than civil generally works against productive conversation.

You seem to read hostility into everyone's posts. How do you suppose that comes across?

 

[BruceLeiter]

Good policy. I suppose the point I'm making is that such comparisons are a rational process. (See post #8)

Sharpening iron with iron presupposes the existence of not just swords but the ability to wield them. Likewise, comparing a doctrine with scripture presupposes one's ability to understand what the doctrine teaches, to understand what the bible teaches and to detect when one is incompatible with the other.

It is precisely this process of reason that most Christian evade. They pick and choose which doctrines they like based on very nearly anything other than a dispassionate and objective evaluation of the rational precepts of whatever it is they're accepting. The proof of this is that there isn't a Christian alive on planet Earth that wouldn't at least claim to do just what you've proposed. Every flavor of Christian that exists all claim that their doctrine is biblical and they mean it! The most conservative, buttoned down collar Baptist and the most emotionally driven Assembly of God pastor BOTH would insist until they turn blue in the face and pass out that their doctrine is in line with what the bible teaches.

They cannot both be right and the bible, by itself (i.e. absent sound reason) cannot tell you which, or if either of them are right. Without sound reason, the bible can be made to teach anything you desire.

@VeritatisVerba, most Christian denominations agree on the basic beliefs of the Christian faith, as being biblical. It's on the minor doctrines that we get hung up.

I was christened as a Methodist baby; grew up in a nondenominational, liberal/neoorthodox church that didn't preach the gospel; became a believer while attending a Baptist church; attended an unbiblical cult for a few years; joined a Reformed denomination, while going to college; was a pastor in that same denomination; and now attend a large, nondenominational church that sticks close to the Bible and has Baptist roots.

So, you see that my theological antennae are always on in evaluating religions in comparison with the Bible.