Leaderboard

I don't know if this is an original thought for others or not - it was for me. When we debate points of doctrine/faith on this forum, people ask for "proof"; and if the initial "proof isnb't sufficient, they ask for more "proof". If they don't ask for "proof", they provide "proof that the other person is wrong and they are right. This frequently leads to arguments and accusations hinting at heresy or apostasy. It got me to thinking - what is the basis of personal faith? Do we require "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, or do we lean on the preponderance of evidence? In my walk as a Christian, I find that my faith constantly evolves. As a Catholic, I was a Trinitarian. When I became a JW, I wasn't. When I was baptized an SDA I was again. Now I'm not again. When I first heard about EGW, I thought it she was full of it. As I read her more and more, I began to believe she might indeed be a true prophet. As my Bible Study deepened, I found things in scripture that didn't jive with EGW's writings. So now I think of her as an inspired writer; but not a prophet. When I went through my "Taliban" SDA phase, I was convicted that I needed to keep the law perfectly or else I would burn. I found my efforts to be futile; and I never witnessed anything close to a "perfect" Christian. As my Bible study deepened, I realized that I am saved by grace alone; and anything "good" in me is a result of grace, not my own efforts. I guess I'm trying to say that my faith has evolved over my life as a Christian. Things I was once convicted of, I now reject; and vice-versa. As I study scripture, I discover "evidence" that I may not have seen before. As that evidence is realized, it modifies my faith. As I think about it, my "faith" is guided by the preponderance of evidence rather than "proof beyond the shadow of a doubt". If it was "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would be "fact" not "faith". Faith by definition is hope for things not seen. When people challenge me on this forum, I don't always have strong responses. Sometimes my response should be "I don't know". In conclusion, some of my faith involves things that I believe I have been shown; but I can't "prove" it beyond the shadow of a doubt. I can only go on the evidence I have received, and as new evidence is revealed, sometimes my faith is revised. What thinkest thou?

I have removed a post from view: * We expect in civil conversation that one will refrain from attacks on a person. * We may challenge that beliefs of another in this forum. But, this forum does not exist to focus on the errors of another group. * We expect that posts will have a positive focus on the beliefs that we hold. * We expect that comments as to what another denomination actually believe will be conducted in a civil manner which will include not attacking someone who presents a view. * I man not be perfect. I do not claim to always be correct. But, that will not prevent me from acting when I decide that I need to do so.