I’ve been going through a very strange change, lately. I don’t know if it’s a change necessarily or just a potential change. It feels like a crisis of faith, though perhaps that’s a bit melodramatic. It feels embarrassing, too, but maybe that’s only because I’m telling you about it.
Lately, I’ve been wondering about my faith, my beliefs, my everything on a very basic level. It’s very strange, as I said before, to be in this position, and I’ve had to face the very basic questions I thought I’d answered for myself a long time ago. Among these are the following: Do I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? If not, what do I believe and what don’t I believe? And, do I really give myself the authority to choose? If not, who do I trust to choose for me? And, how do I know I can trust them?
Also, what is the relationship between faith and proof in my life? When do I care about empirical evidence and when do I not? And why? And, when I don’t look to empirical evidence, how do I explain my position to others? And if I can’t figure that out in any concrete way, how to I share my faith with others? How do I argue? Or, should I not argue at all?
Here are my thoughts on that first strain. The second will be saved for a later post.
1.) “Do I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?”
Ask me three years ago, and I would have answered with a resounding, “Yes.” Ask me today, and I would say this: I think that Word of God is inerrant, but the hand of man is not. So I guess the only way to know if the Bible is the inerrant word of God is to ask God if the Bible is the inerrant word of God—to ask God if the hand of man got it right.
The only problem with that is that I trust my ability to interpret God’s words without error about as much as I trust the ability of the whole of the writers of the Bible, the whole of the Council of Nicea, the whole of Christian biblical scholars, the whole of interpreters and the whole of translators to interpret God’s words without error. Sufficed to say, I don’t trust myself (or anyone else, for that matter) not to make even little mistakes that might keep the Bible from being the inerrant word of God. I for sure have trouble trusting our interpretation to the letter (if that makes the intrusion on the sacred less severe).
2.) But, if I even have the slightest doubt that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, what do I believe and what don’t I believe?
Well, I can’t really answer that. I believe that the Bible is godly, for sure, if not inerrant. I feel it’s inspired, as I’ve practiced many of the tenements of the Bible, especially the Big 2, and they have always brought spiritual growth, have synced up with my prayer life, have brought joy and have healed, created and strengthened relationships in my life.
But what about the things I don’t believe? Well, it’s not that I can think of anything I don’t “believe” in the Bible. It’s more that I don’t believe in widely held interpretations all the time. Or, I don’t believe certain stories were meant to be taken literally. Or, I don’t believe that certain things were meant to be interpreted by everyone the same way—or applied the same way in everyone’s life.
I guess my experiences with God, if I can trust them (and I must, really, otherwise I have no faith and what would the point be otherwise?) tell me that God loves all different people—that he knows how to be a father (mother, parent) to all different people. That he says certain things for certain children to hear and certain other things for certain other children to hear. I guess that kind of thinking makes it easier for me to read the Bible. It makes me feel closer to it. But most importantly, that kind of thinking makes me feel closer to God.
But, of course, that brings up the next question:
3.) Do I really give myself authority to choose what to believe and what not to believe? Or, I think to put it more correctly, do I trust myself to choose what to apply to my life and what not to apply?
The answer to this question is what I’m probably struggling with most: do I trust myself to correctly apply the Bible to my own life? (By correctly, I mean apply it in the way God intended it to be applied in my specific life.) No, not totally. That’s what makes this part hard. I am still quite young, quite inexperienced, quite spiritually immature. How could I possible trust myself? I can’t.
But of course, how can I not trust myself to some extent? I’m the human being who knows me best. I’m not God, so I’m not omniscient (I realize that if you don’t believe in God or don’t believe God to be omniscient, this argument doesn’t hold water with you, but this is the framework I’m using). But I am me and I do know me—at least I fancy myself self-aware enough to know myself better than others. So, I don’t trust myself completely, but I do trust myself in part. And I would think that, as I get older and more experienced, my trust will grow.
4.) So, who do I trust in the meantime? Who do I let decide spiritual things for me if I’m unsure or find myself in a state of weakness?
I used to trust my pastor. But, I moved churches years ago and have since discovered that I don’t entirely agree with my old pastor anyway. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t ask his advice and consider it—I would.
I think I can trust my priest. But, I’ve yet to establish a relationship with him—with any of them—so it’s too soon to tell. (This is something I need to do.)
I trust my mother, my grandmother, my father, my aunties and my boyfriend to be great moral compasses. I don’t always agree with them, but I know who I can ask about what. Who never lies? Who never cheats? Who always loves? Who is patient? Who is kind? Who is neighborly? Who is brave? Who loves God?
But even as I listen to others, I still have to decide for myself. Which leads back to the previous question, which is really the question that’s hard.
Will I ever be able to trust myself? Is this an attainable goal? A worthwhile one? Am I just plain wrong and should go back to the old days of fundamentalism? Of establishing my life on an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible?
At the ripe-old age of 22, I predict that, no, I will never trust myself completely. Or, I will never trust myself to always be right. And, no I shouldn’t return to fundamentalism (though time will tell). Rather, I predict that I will grow comfortable with giving myself permission to live the best way I know how, calling on others in times of need—calling on God always.
I hope this is true. In the meantime, I’m trying to enjoy this change, this crisis of faith. I’m trying to enjoy growing up, despite the turmoil. I’m trying to enjoy a time on which I will one day look back and call “the days of my insecure youth.”
Brothers and sisters who are further along in their faith: did this change happen to you? I would love some community here, if you are willing to share.
I think everyone has had questions about their faith at one time or the other. I am not a Pastor, just another christian tht has had the same questions. I think that knowledge of God is an ongoing challenge.
Remember that Satan loves to find ways to get into our heads and cause doubt. I will tell you, just as I did my 19 year old granddaughter. When you accepted Jesus as your Lord a Savior he gave you the gift of the Holy Spirit to indwell in your heart John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Your questions seem to be coming from your mind, please remember God speaks through your heart. Remember That small voice whispering in your ear is the Holy Spirit guiding you.
God does give us Free Will to choose the path we walk. I pray that God will speak to your heart.
God Bless
Ken, thank you for your comment. I am always encouraged when reminded that I have the Holy Spirit as a guide.
Brittany,
First, to respond to what was posted above, I certainly echo some of those same sentiments. I, too, pray that God will “speak” to you in some way.
However, there are a couple things I disagree with in Ken’s comments that I think are directly related to some of my own thoughts around your questions.
First, I don’t buy the head-heart dichotomy anymore. I certainly used to, though. I think our brains, which are responsible for our capacity to think and reason, are God’s good creation. Further, what we usually refer to as “heart,” that is our emotions such as love, empathy, and compassion, are all (at least partially) functions of our brains. We know that emotions have their roots in chemical processes in our brains, in other words. Is love merely a chemical reaction? No, at least I don’t think so, and I’m certainly not trying to truncate the reality and importance of those emotions. I’m just trying to demonstrate that our brain and “heart” are fundamentally connected; therefore, our brain (i.e., our capacity to think critically and rationally) is our friend, not our enemy.
Second, Jesus loves doubters. In fact, he embraces them and reveals himself to them. He reached out to Peter when he was sinking in the waves, and he revealed himself to Thomas to show him his hands and feet. I don’t view doubt as an enemy but rather as a medium through which Jesus can actually speak to us and reveal himself to us.
=========================
Anyway, on to the question you’ve asked, which I think are all good questions.
As I see it, the biggie is #1, and it’s fundamentally a two-part question.
The first part is about revelation and the second part is about epistemology.
On Revelation: In seminary, I studied a lot of Karl Barth (there’s a decent wiki article on him if you’re not familiar), who has quickly become one of the most important theologians of the 20th century. He’s been received into the Evangelical world with mixed reactions, largely because of his views on Scripture, namely, what its purpose is, how it is constituted, and why it’s “authoritative.”
There’s a great article on Karl Barth’s view on Scripture and the Word of God here. It’s a bit lengthy, but I would highly recommend it.
Putting Barth’s view simply (which will inevitably mean inaccurately in some respects): Jesus is the Word of God who has spoken, speaks in the present, and will continue to speak in all future presents. Scripture is a witness to Jesus (the Word of God) and is not the Word of God in and of itself. Scripture testifies to Jesus, and that is its sole function and purpose. In the OT, we hear the collective anticipation of the Messiah (Jesus, the Word of God), and in the NT, we hear the collective response the Messiah as he appeared to his disciples and early followers. Thus, Scripture is not authoritative because it was literally penned by the Holy Spirit (inerrancy); rather, Scripture is authoritative (for lack of a better term) derivatively, as the human witness to the Word of God, Jesus. So, Scripture and the Word of God are not identical, but they are intimately related.
That probably sounds as clear as a mud puddle
Additionally, there’s a blog I’ve started reading recently called Exploring our Matrix whose author has a lot to say about the bible, its authority, etc. I haven’t found a post that simply outlines what he thinks about these topics; rather, it’s woven in and out of his posts about other topics.
I’d put him in the liberal/progressive camp (which I don’t mean as an insult but merely to be descriptive).
You can find exmaples of what I mean HERE and HERE.
Further, even among Evangelicals, there’s debate over the words “inerrancy” and “infallibility.” Infallibility is intriguing to me in its softer meaning. To claim that the bible is infallible is simply to claim that the bible can and does accomplish that which it was purposed to do. I understand the purpose of the bible to be to witness to Jesus Christ and the reconciliation of the world through him. By accepting infallibility in this way, I am able to remain in my home tradition of Evangelicalism and reject inerrancy.
On epistemology: I wish I had a more fully developed answer to this question. How do we know what we know? Or perhaps more accurately, on what basis can we Christians make truth claims? When you get rid of inerrancy, it seems like you’re simultaneously undercutting your ability to make truth claims — because you’ve seemingly eliminated your authoritative basis (God’s revelation).
My tentative response would be to argue that we can still make truth claims (albeit humbly) because the Word of God is still speaking to the church. I would be quick to emphasize that I think this is a communal process, though, not strictly an individual one (which I think starts getting at your questions about trusting oneself and others). When I look at church history, there is example after example of the Holy Spirit creating new things through communal dialog. Take the early church councils in which the canon was decided and the doctrines of Incarnation and Trinity were hammered out. In other words, perhaps the Word of God speaks to us in the process of communal dialogue and reflection.
Obviously, such an argument creates a posture of epistemic humility and sometimes even uncertainty.
Whoa, that turned into a really big wall of text. Props if you are able to get through my rambling and even bigger props for responding
brgulker:
Very long comment, yes, but also very helpful. This part stood out to me most:
I have never thought about it so clearly, but this idea certainly helps me understand how I can feel on the one hand that the Bible isn’t “perfect” (inerrant), while still feeling its intimate relationship with the real Word (Jesus).
I’m going to have to think about this more.
Thanks for your support, as always.
Brittany,
I was extremely confusing about the matter of faith when I young. I was a Protestant (Presbyterian). I would like to share my experience with you and your guests. I am from South Korea. So my English is poor. But I think my experience is not poor.
Now I am glad that I could come to the calm and peaceful state of mind after so many days of agony and vagrancy. How could I? I self-studied the major religions of the world after I graduated from my college. (My major was biology.) My religious study helped me open my eyes and come out from my decades-deep muddy pit of agony. So happy that I am now I call it salvation.
A little different but relevant story:
If you ever live in the North Korea (I wish you never!) and you hear the doctrines that Kim Jong-Il is the wisest man in the world and that all other countries are hell-like places where people die in hunger and be exploited by the satanic US imperialists, and so on and on day after day and year after year, you will have no choice other than believe firmly that Kim is God and North Korea is the only paradise of people in the world.
North Korean people are living in their “closed church” 7/24/365. They teach it people’s paradise. I call it living hell. About 2 million North Korean people died of hunger and disease during 1990s. The tragedy is still going on.
What I am trying to say is that it is necessary for you (and any one) to see, read, and hear the world as it is as wide and far as possible without any third party’s indoctrination.
I am sorry but I think you seem to have been living in a kind of pit—I mean narrow experience, because you are young. You probably have not read or heard of the words of Allah, Buddha, Isis, Ishtar, Marduk, Ahura Mazda, etc.
You cannot know your religion and God objectively until you get broad knowledge about other gods and other religions. You are in a “closed church” which says to you that only your religion is true and all others are the works of the devil. This is what all other churches or religions do too though.
You need to see and hear the world as wide and deep as possible. Traveling is best but expensive and takes much time. The second choice is reading. Sometimes reading is better than traveling. Traveling may provide superficial knowledge. But books can relate thousands of years of human experience.
Reading takes time. But it would surely help you get objective knowledge, wisdom, unflinching conscience, and freedom of mind. Reason is not perfect as long as one is fed with only one kind of culture or philosophy. Wide experience and broad knowledge will surely help you open your eyes of mind and sound reason. You will find that you are born again as a free soul.
—————
Concerning reading, I recommend that you read—if you have not yet–the book “Infidel (pp. 361),” written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalil-born Dutch stateswoman. The book is about her graduation from Islamism.
I read her book quite recently. This book is so interesting, honest, impactive, dramatic, and eye-opening. She cries out for the salvation of those unhappy women (and men also) under the barbarous laws dictated by the all-know and all-time watcher—Allah (God).
Bet you will not go to bed until you finish this book. You will probably find your calling from your conscience. You will understand what Islam is through her book and also see objectively what Judaism, Christianity, and socialism/ communism are.
If you want to know more deeply about the true color of Islam, I’d recommend that you read “Why I am not a Muslim (pp. 402)” by Ibn Warraq. This book is amazing. This book will give you ample historical information of and relationship between/among Muslim, Judaism, and Christianity.
You can buy almost new copies at very cheap prices at online book store.
My maxim is this: “Beware of those who say, “Only my words/methods are the infallible truth so that never, ever, see, listen, think, or do what others’ say or do because they are the things of the devil.” You will understand this maxim when you finish the books I recommend to you.
I wrote three books in Korean about my study about religions of the world when I was in Korea. I have a calling as does Ayaan. Now I am translating my books with my poor English. I hope to introduce some (many) chapters in your site if you do not object.
Brittany, while you’re examining your beliefs, I think you should also consider another possibility — that our deep emotions, intuitions, and feelings about the universe, life, love and purpose are all part of a completely natural process, and that “God” in every religion is a projection of what we see in ourselves.
There are a lot of misconceptions about believing there’s no God. A lot of people think it means that life has no purpose, or that it’s just an excuse to be immoral. While you’re soul searching, I’d like to suggest that you take a while to look at non-belief from a perspective other than a believer’s. Obviously, believers are going to criticize us non-believers, but do their criticisms hold up? Are we really more immoral? Are we all really so unhappy? Do we show any signs of having less “purpose” or “meaning”?
I’m just one non-believer, and I wouldn’t want you to take me at my word. How would that be any different than taking the word of a pastor who tells you that he’s really, really sure that Jesus was the son of God? Even so, I want you to know that I had a similar crisis of belief. I was raised very religious, and became a non-believer in my 20s after asking myself the same questions you’re asking. Since then, I have discovered that not only are purpose, meaning, and happiness attainable without god belief, it’s actually quite possible to find more happiness, comfort, and purpose when you realize that you and you alone are in control of your own destiny, and that morality makes sense without god, and that you are a good person because you’re a good person, not because you’re afraid of hell, or think it takes magic to be good.
If you have time, I’d like to invite you to check out my blog in detail. If you have questions, I’ll be happy to answer them, and if you’d like me to tell you about my own journey, I’ll do that, too. If you decide not to look down this path, I can’t say I blame you. It’s scary from your side of the fence. I know. I’ve been there.
In any case, I wish you the best in your search.
hambydammit:
Thank you for your input and advice. Of course there are just so many official belief (or non-belief) systems out there and so many variations there within. I appreciate you sharing a part of your story with me, and I will certainly check out your blog, if only to further learn about people with different beliefs and systems than my own. I’ve allowed myself to consider the “there’s no God” angle a bit. Of course, it’s scary to try to suspend something like that even for a nano-second. But at every point that I suspend, I become overwhelmed with the feeling that non-belief is not the place where I am going to find my truth. And, though I know why you wrote this, I would never hold the opinion that a non-believer cannot be just as moral or just as happy as I am. Who am I to tell someone else what they do and do not feel and why?
Thank you again for your comment.
Hey Brittany
I get these often when I dwell on the kinds of questions you were expressing. Will this help? I don’t know. It helps me…maybe it will help you. so here goes…
I’m barely three years your senior so I’m don’t think that qualifies me as further along in the faith but I felt compelled to write simply due to the fact that I got a headache thinking about what you wrote.
The concerns your expressing are normal for any Christian these days. At least it seems normal to me when I think about how we’re more or less 2000 years removed from the resurrection. Here’s how I rationalize that assertion: What we have are ancient documents written by supposed eyewitnesses (or close associates) who held to a particular view of the world. In addition to this we have past and present day witness to a large diverse body of imperfect and messy people (verdict of scripture: redeemed sinners) trying to follow as best they can these documents. These documents speak of a faith and worldview that is centered around the historical redemptive work of God in Christ. In addition to that we as Christians are supposed to look ultimately from these texts to a God and Lord who is invisible to the physical eye. To me this sounds like a recipe for crisis, questioning, doubt…call it what you will. Ancient documents + invisible God = ?s Personally I’d be surprised if you weren’t thinking about these things (and envious because I can’t stop and don’t really expect to). From my reading of scripture It seems to me that true and sincere faith requires a crisis of belief (how can you have faith without the presence of doubt and a crisis of belief?). And given our unique position as 21st century people…well, I’d say a crisis of faith is normal. Dare I say….intended? At the very least it should be expected. It reminds me of the Lord’s words “In this world your will have trouble…”
And why should we expect any less? Having faith is a difficult thing…if it weren’t we wouldn’t need Bible or Church or God/Son/HS for that matter. It makes me think about one reason why most of the NT exists. If Christians lived the way they were supposed to, with the right frame of mind they were supposed to…that would essentially eliminate the need for a large portion of the NT, for it was only out confusion and crisis that many of those documents were written. Written by Apostles to and for people who kept screwing up and forgetting despite the fact that they had access to eyewitness testimony and experienced eyewitness evangelistic fervor. Particularly I think of Galatians and the Corinthian letters. If we share anything with our brothers and sisters of past Christendom it’s our ability to screw up and or forget what we were taught.
So what is the verdict for us who are bound by time and limited in our understanding and held fast by chains of sin and doubt? We know we can be better than we are yet we find ourselves always doubting and failing. Is there any hope for us? Can we trust anyone or anything at all. Oh sure we think…we can trust God, but do we know who it is we are trusting and believing in or that we are believing rightly? Oh we know of the secular solution of pride and belief in oneself, but we see the inherent weakness of it in the fact of human imperfection. It is tantamount to idiocy to assert that a person knows what is best for themselves when even they have to ask themselves what is best for themselves. What a dilemma we are in!
Well, I am of the opinion that the key to our dilemma lies in the Scriptures, particularly their testimony of the grace of God demonstrated through the incarnation (the union of God and man in the person of Jesus) and the subsequent historical (real event in history) redemptive work (act whereby God steps down to save us and reconcile us to himself) of the cross and resurrection. Regardless of what translational errors or error of the authors of scripture may or may not be, it is hard to fault their sincerity, the record of history of their zeal, or the overwhelming message of grace pointed too again and again by the authors of the bible. These people actually believed that God had done something unique in the first century that holds the key to our dilemma as humans. They saw human sinfulness as plainly evident and people therefore in need of saving. Nothing seems to have changed to this day (well except maybe the increase of rationale to justify pride but I’d wager that people have always been puffed up on their own ‘goodness’ or ‘decentness’).
Do we still have questions about the nature of inspiration and translation and trust in authors, one of whom one said “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost”? I think a key lies in the fact that while our faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, our faith is not simply blind acceptance but a faith stemming from a testimony that is bound up in time and dependant on real events. For as that same author said “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” He seemed to find solace in the fact that what he believed was something that actually happened to the point that he would say in one of his letters that “even if we (him and his companions) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Therefore, the truth and integrity of the gospel rests not on our faith or our faithfulness for it is true even if we don’t believe it or follow it and especially true when we don’t know what to believe and struggle to follow it (blessed are the poor in spirit). Furthermore we have the continued existence of Scripture and Church as empirical links proving the perseverance of Christian belief.
So can I ever trust myself? Well, I know that Jeremiah said this “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” That seems an apt and true statement in my opinion. I agree with you, I don’t think I will ever trust myself completely and that is probably for the best. On the other hand we have this testimony that is said to be trustworthy and deserving full acceptance. In that I will trust.
Here’s to hoping that these thoughts help you.
Sincerely,
Kyle
P.S. oh…as one speaking from a limited perspective in his own little corner of his very imperfect Christian walk I can only tell you what at times helps me when I get all discombobulated with these concerns. I try to simplify things so I pray, read the Bible, worship and think…then repeat…not in any particular order or in any particular way. I take and read large swaths of the NT most times. It also helps to be able to talk to others and write things down. I think reading the Bible is most important not simply as a virtue in and of itself but because we have a tendency to forget…well…at least I do. Perhaps our struggles are not so much a lack of faith as a result of a lack of trustworthy information? (doesn’t it say that faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of God?)
Another thought: about trusting yourself to interpret God’s words correctly. When I dwell on this I think about the medium of writing and what it assumes. Writing involves the expression of ideas, thoughts and feeling through the written word. It assumes that people can read and think and understand and can comprehend it in the spirit in which it was given. Granted there is always misinterpretation but by and large we humans function in a society where most of the time we understand each other all to clearly and sometimes more than we would like to. To write is to assume comprehension by others or at the very least by one’s self (you yourself wrote something you assumed would be at least understood in part). To this end I think we can understand the basic thrust of a particular Scriptural text although I think we have to recognize that we are limited in our understanding and always need to be learning and listening and re-evaluating. Although out of context a bit I think Paul speaks to the spirit of this when he says “if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.”
well I’m gonna stop before I continue and my brain explodes…I do hope and pray these words help. It’s really nothing new and probably a bunch of stuff you’ve heard before. i apologize for the length of it, but I’ve been (and still am in many respects) in a similar crisis. peace! take care.
Kyle,
Thank you for your (many) words.
It sounds like we’re kindred spirits of sorts, at least at this point in our faiths, though you seem to have formed more of an explanation than I have. I like what you said. Maybe soon I will get to a point of some coherence and comfort as well. Thanks for your prayers; you have mine as well.
-Brittany
Brittany,
Let me share a story to explain my perspective.
I am the mother of 6 children, and many times I have messages I need to communicate to one of my children.
Let’s say I want to tell my 16 year old son that I am proud of how he did in his last karate competition and that after watching him perform, I would suggest that he work on his roundhouse kicks using the bag at the gym.
I can write him a note, and put it in his room , but his dog will probably sniff it, chew it, drool on it, and when he goes to read it, he might get only some of the message. I can call his cell phone and leave a voice mail, but it might cut off half way through and he only gets a part of it. I can ask his older sister to tell him, but if she is mad at him she might put a tone of sarcasm to it that would make it seem less than genuine. I can ask his little brother to tell him, but he may be so adoring of his older brother that he leaves off the corrective part of my message. So how does he get my actual message? As the one desiring to communicate the information, I take responsibility for correcting anyone else’s mistakes as they alter or “translate” my message and I take the responsibility of making sure that despite the other “incorrect” versions he may receive, that he ultimately receives exactly what I want him to know.
As the author of my message, I jealously guard the integrity of that message, and as the Author of the message of the Word of God, I believe that our Father also jealously guards the integrity of the message He wants us to hear, know, follow. Seek Him and He will guarantee that You will receive His message for you. He will protect you and His word from falsehood. As you read his Word, your trust is not in paper or ink or words or sentences, it is in the power of the Holy Spirit to use those things to communicate divine truth to you. The test of integrity is if what you read or hear or perceive makes you over more in the image of Christ.
You can trust that the Scriptures, written by the hand of man, editted by men, translated by men, is true, because God will safeguard His message to you through it by His Holy Spirit, as He has always done.
I am hoping this issue has been resolved for you and by you as it is not a recent topic. Here is my advice for anyone searching and questioning as you were during your time of doubt.
When we are children we are given the rules on what is right and wrong, and what is true and what is not true. These rules come down from people who infulence us, though mainly from those who are in charge of us.
As we reach adult life, we begin to notice what we were told is true, is not as true as we were taught. Suddenly we have a problem of a nature such as yours.
If we do not question what we are told is true, whether our belief system, or our local politics, what is the purpose of our being?
If we accept what is passed down to us as the unbending truth, we are nothing more than clones of those before us. It does not take a very large view of the world to see that those who came before us did not have it all right in many areas of life.
Then there is that little voice scaring us, telling us that if we choose to doubt for an instant we are in danger of eternal damnation. That voice comes from to many centuries of threats and applied action taken in an effort to control a given population.
If one only has a belief system and has never actually held or read a bible is their belief any less real than that of the latest Prophet? I suggest it is more real. An itinerant belief is not reinforced by writeen verbage, but through other more concrete methods.
One should never be afraid to put their beliefs to the test. To not put your beliefs under the microscope is to deny your God given freedom to choose. We are unique spirits in a human container and that is how we were meant to be.
We have our thoughts and our ability to think and reason for a purpose. To deny ourselves the possibility of arriving at our own truth is better than blindly following a belief system passed on to us which we have no trust in and find real faith in, in short supply.
To naysayers who chant, “He just doesn’t get it”, I suggest if everyone ‘got it’, chanting would still be going on with the same level of noise as it does today.
[...] Brittany’s s blog post , concerns the correctness of her personal belief system; questioning which parts of her belief are correct, and which areas may not be correct. This has been a relevant personal question for thousands of years and will continue to be relevant as long as one group has the power and ability to influence another. [...]