I will step back and say that you are correct that a certain amount of questioning (interpreting) is required. But we need to be careful about the sources we look to for that interpretation. I will say that the best source is the Holy Spirit. My experience has been when I have listened to other men on just what a verse means without taking it to the Holy Spirit I have gotten it wrong. I depend allot on the Spirit due to my calling and have found He has never steered me wrong.

Unfortunately we were talking about semantics. My apologies if I have offended you.

I do have a tendency to add side arguments to my points and it should not surprise me when those arguments are addressed and not my main point especially when my side points address a large part of your comments.

It seems I may be wrong about the location of the scripture in Hebrews. I will have to do a more diligent search when I have time.

I will go back and re-read your post again and see what else should/can be addressed.

In a sense you are correct we do have to ask questions about the meaning of the verses we are reading. My statement was more of who do we ask them to. Do we go to other men and ask, do we ask ourselves, or do we go to the author and ask Him? I would say the best option of the three is the one who wrote it, The Holy Spirit. My statement is backed up by Peter in Hebrews. If you need me to I will cite the verse but this, is a quick reply.

“I never said “our defining God” was capturing him in his whole definition, I was simply referring to the reality that we do, as a race of people, attempt to define him…everywhere. As to this quote you speak to, I am in great company with scripture to call him “My God”. Shall I list the verses for you?”

My point here is that whenever someone brings the argument of my G_d is bigger than your G_d it is an attempt to put down the argument by belittling the person on the other end without actually addressing their argument. It is a strawman argument as regardless of our pitiful attempts to define Him, who He is does not change. It places you in a position of weakness to someone who knows the true art of debate. I do not doubt that there are many places in the Word that have the reference “my G_d” but that still does not negate my argument that doing so places a possessive qualifier on Him. It is still best to allow Him to define who He is.

It is also duly noted that you argued with my side points and not this issue at hand.

First saying “My G_d” puts the relation ship in the possessive and sets the person saying it to defining the relationship.
I never said “our defining God” was capturing him in his whole definition, I was simply referring to the reality that we do, as a race of people, attempt to define him…everywhere. As to this quote you speak to, I am in great company with scripture to call him “My God”. Shall I list the verses for you?

I know that to be true from my own experience. It’s really difficult to admit that we (the more conservative-side) could be wrong about our interpretation of scripture. Why is that? Rufus would tell us that we should have ideas instead of beliefs. Ideas can change more easily.”

This situation has nothing to do with how big our G_d is, or how we define our relationship. As a mater of fact if we allow ourselves to define the relationship then we in a way are attempting to make Him fit our preconceived notions. The relationship is for Him to define we are merely to submit to His loving authority.

In some regards you and Wendy are correct. We should always be examining what we believe. Questions like “Is what I am saying Biblically correct?”, or “Am I seeing what the Word is saying correctly?” are questions we should be asking ourselves continuously. Could I be wrong should always be asked especially in the light of the scripture. This is good with the things that are not so clearly defined, but when something like homosexuality and a number of other sexual acts such as adultery, and fornication are clearly defined as sins wondering whether you are wrong in you interpretation goes out the window. We are not to interpret scripture we are simply to apply it to our lives as the Holy Spirit reveals it to us. Quite frankly that would mean that if the Word stated that chewing bubble gum while standing on your head in the corner was a sin it would not change simply because there were a number of people currently engaged in doing said act and we were uncomfortable with informing them it was in fact wrong to engage in. (totally fictitious but I wanted to get off of the issue of homosexuality and back to where it belonged on sin in general)

”I think some of it has to do with our feeling that we must defend something of God’s dignity or integrity. And certainly those are things about which we should be concerned, but really – isn’t God big enough to handle these things on his own? It seems he is more than able to defend his name, correct his people, and keep his integrity in tact.

Sure, he uses people. But we also have a book filled with examples of his ability to get the job done in the midst of his people’s inability to act, think, speak correctly about him and listen correctly to him. That’s the beauty and wonder of our relationship. He doesn’t need us to help get his job done – but he chooses to use us anyway because he loves us.”

You are right in that He does not need us to protect His dignity, integrity, or to get His work done, but He does chose to employ us in those regards. Throughout recorded history there have been those He has chosen to use to either write His word or to ensure that His word does not get corrupted by those who would attempt to change it’s meaning to suit their own agenda or simply make it fit their own preconceived worldview.

”My God is very big. He’s big enough to take Wendy’s conviction (whether she is correct or not) and my conviction (wether I am correct or not) and utilize us both for his purposes. The caveat here is that we both are desperately seeking God about these issues AND our pliability in case we’re wrong.

It certainly seems she has that pliability and that earnestness.”

First saying “My G_d” puts the relation ship in the possessive and sets the person saying it to defining the relationship. (See my point above) But that is not the issue here. If we were discussing the doctrines of different denominations such as infant baptism vs. adult baptism, security of the believer, what kind of clothing and hairstyles are acceptable, or even if Bono has anything worthwhile to say , you would be basically correct. We should have the pliability to work with each other to further spread the gospel. Yet that is not the issue either we have a more fundamental issue at stake here.

1. Is the Bible the inspired, infallible Word of G_d?
2. If it is, then are there passages that contain clear references to what actions are considered sinful?
3. If those clear references exist (they do), then how are we to treat those lost in sin (without Christ) and those who have made a profession of faith yet still have sin in their life? In other words are we to tolerate unrepentant sin on the part of a believer?

These are the important questions and the real issue at hand. Do we partner ourselves with someone who has expressly stated that they believe that a sin clearly represented in the Word is not one, and said that even if we did agree that it was a sin should we hold someone who has made a profession of faith accountable if they continue in that sin?

Now I have to thank you for one of those light bulb moments. Somehow, through all these years, I had never picked up on something you casually toss out almost as an afterthought.

I think some of it has to do with our feeling that we must defend something of God’s dignity or integrity.

Well, duh! As I hit myself on the head. As things reshuffle and click into new places in my head, it’s obvious. And I never saw it.

I guess as I enter the story through the Incarnation, the details of Jesus’ ministry, his passion and resurrection, and work of the Holy Spirit through his early church, I don’t see a God who is overly concerned about his dignity and integrity. That’s not his passion or his focus. Rather, as I engage the story from creation on, and particularly in the focal point of the Incarnation, I feel God’s overriding love and unexplainable passion for us. For us, he made himself a little lower than the angels, became a servant, suffered without cause, but also without complaint, the grossest indignities, and in so doing transformed them with his innate dignity and glory.

I’ve certainly never had the slightest thought that God was interested in having me defend his dignity or integrity (which are qualities beyond reproach in God anyway), but rather that he desires me to emulate Christ and join with him as he continues his redemptive work. I’m not very good at it, but that’s always been my perception. And I’ve certainly never felt worthy of defending God’s dignity and integrity even had I sensed he desired it.

But now that you’ve spelled it out, I can see that the actions and words of a lot of people appear driven by that desire. It makes it no less alien to me, but at least now I have a place to slide things that have never made any sense at all to me.

I don’t have any problem hanging with, talking with, and dialoguing with people who have different thoughts than mine. In fact, I find that’s one of the ways I have mine tested and stretched. A homogenous environment strikes me as pretty boring. When I sense a discussion distresses someone, I tend to remain silent. And I never like to argue. That seems pretty pointless. But then, I have a pretty fluid framework.

Thanks again.vwhgf