There are two anchors to consider when it comes to Christian Faith & if either of these anchors are not solidly planted into the ground of a person’s relationship with Christ, then it is quite possible that the "Jesus" that the person is following is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Christians, especially Christians of Protestant heritage often speak of a concept called “Sola Scriptura” – this is a Latin term coined during the 14-16^th century advent of Reformed Christianity. It’s English translation it typically presented as “Bible Alone”.  Here is the first anchor of a healthy Christian faith.

How often have we been told that forgiveness means everything is made better, everything is forgotten? The same people will quote verses like Psalms 103:12 in attempt to prove not only is God merciful (which indeed He is) but that sin has no consequence (which indeed it does).

Looking at the example of a man of whom it has been said, was a “man after God's own heart” we can clearly see that though God forgives & does remove our transgressions from us as far as the east is from the west, this does not negate that the damage done by sin often remains.

David was called to be king of Israel, king of the Jews all the while David was a small & humble shepherd boy. God lead David to the throne, giving victory after victory into the hand of David, even eventually over Saul, the previous king. (1 Sam 16-31). It is important to note that it was God that was leading David into these wars & giving David the victories, because it will help us make sense of the verses we are about to view.

Bad things do happen therefore there are a few conclusions we can draw:

1. There is no God in operation (things happen as they happen)
2. That if there is a God “he” is powerless to stop bad things
3. That if there is a God “he” has a purpose in bad things happening

The other day, I was reminded of an important Christian principle as I struggled to answer my 14 year old daughter's question about the importance of learning.  Due to her disinterest in science my daughter sometimes struggles in that area.  As I explained to her that there was a time when children would be taught to be fluent in multiple languages & the rudiments of all subjects.  I also explained the very short time we are here -- typically about 80 years.  Then she asked the question:

"Why does anyone need to be that smart?"

First, I explained it isn't really about being "smart" but that the things we do, the things we learn are NOT just for us & our short 80 year life but rather it is for all the people who come after us -- for posterity. 

The most common phrase employed whenever two parties seem to reach an irresolvable impasse is the phrase, “We’ll just have to agree to disagree”.  Though this may sound charitable & diplomatic, it isn’t really realistic. Unresolved conflicts will simply resurface at another point.

This is even truer when it comes to theological disputes.  The reason so many issues seem to resurface generations later is because the issue was never resolved in the first place, but only set aside.

Now, perhaps we might be tempted to think some issues aren’t resolvable. Though that may be true when it comes to mere opinions & subjective issues this is not the case with theology.  The Word of God is not meant to be subjective.  It really is supposed to have only one true meaning.  It is getting at that meaning that may be sometimes difficult especially as people bring their own biases to it.

When two Christians disagree over a theological point, especially such pivotal points as say God’s Sovereignty & mankind’s so-called freewill there can be no middle ground; there can be no “agreeing to disagree”.  Either one or both of the points are incorrect.

The problem is, especially perhaps in America where we're taught every “opinion” counts is that we approach theological disagreements in the same manner that we approach any subjective disagreement. This ought not to be.

Typically those who deny that God can be fair & righteous & victorious & still condenm people to "hell" (whatever that entails is another question), the claim is made that no one ever answers their silver-bullet question about a supposed loving God who can also send people to hell.

Often they keep pretending "no Calvinist will ever answer" their silver-bullet question. I will point out one last time that their question has been answered OVER AND OVER -- they just don't like the answer so they pretend it isn't an answer.

Just to be clear, the question again is posed like this:

You have heard it said that even Jesus hung out with tax-collectors & prostitutes so how dare we judge such people. But what is not often pointed out in these appeals for loving tolerance is that Jesus expected these people to change, to repent & no longer be corrupt tax-collectors (corruption & tax-collection was synonymous at the time) or prostitutes.  Thus, Jesus only hung at with them to change them.  He in no way was approving of their sins.  These tax-collectors & prostitutes became FORMER corrupt tax-collectors & FORMER prostitutes.

To illustrate the point even more let us look at the accounts of a tax-collector & a prostitute & Jesus’ interaction with them.

How can you tell if someone is a Christian?  We often hear people quote John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”  But the problem is the people who often quote this verse (like other people who build their theology on single proof-texts) typically never define “love” or they define it simply as being nice to each other.  And then we must ask what constitutes being “nice”?  Is it “nice” & “loving” to let one another run off the side of a cliff for example?

These same people that love to quote John 13:35 without any definition are the same that typically have disdain for doctrine, for dogma, for propositions.  They will claim that those things divide.  Yes, yes they do – they are designed to divide. (1 Cor 11:19)  Unity for unity’s sake can just as well be unity around error.  Do we really think Jesus was saying, “Forget about doctrine, just love one another”.  No, rather John 14:15 shows what it means to love:

In the age where we are always trying to make things less offensive, either through perfuming or makeovers there is something about God almost no one wants to bring up.  We have worked hard to re-paint & reshape a more generous god, a god that is fair by our standards & is kind to a fault.  We certainly don’t ever want to project a God that might be offensive to anyone, for who would worship such a God.

But is this really the God of the Bible?

When I read the Bible I see the very egotistical God – not ego in how we humans view it, but God is God & His ego isn’t merely arrogance & grandeur of delusion as human ego is, but His “ego” is really His own glory.  I see in His commandments, the God that commands…even demands that we have no god before Him. (Ex 20:3)  I see the God who is “jealous” (Ex 34:14). I see the God that is very exclusionary, who creates humans & blesses some over others for no apparent reason than to display His grace & mercy...His own glory.