I think this is very compromising. I think, at least where our faith is concerned, we need to be very strong & out spoken. Christians are being killed every day for their faith and refusing to renounce their faith in Christ.

I know in a round about way, this author is trying to say the same thing as me. I tried that for many years! I never won a soul to Christ, and got rejected and walked all over. Now I never minded being walked all over, but, I believe that even though we are to be strong, we should never mince words. I think too many people would take this as permission to not serve God.
What do the rest of you think?

Good discussion topic, Lavender.

Thanks, Marlene, for your reply and comment. I think, hope I am not wrong, the author's point is when we disagree with someone about something in general, not necessarily about whether God exists, we should not assume that our opinion is truth, and the other person's opinion is falsehood or misinformation.

Christians perceive God and salvation as truth. I do too. I agree with you that "where our faith is concerned, we need to be very strong & out spoken."

Here is my problem. Let's say Christian A reads some Bible verses, putting them together and comes up with what he calls "truth." Christian B grabs different parts of the Bible, putting the verses together and calls what he comes up with "truth." And the two Christians happen to have different interpretations on the subject or as the author in the article calls "different perspectives." How should they deal with (the difference?

When both insist their interpretations (perspectives) are truth, it can appear as if they are telling the other person he is a liar. This is when "keeping" their truth to themselves is a wise thing to do as the author of this article suggests, "Everyone likes to be the one that knows the objective answer. We should all do ourselves a favour though and keep our mouth shut way more than we open them."

I brought this subject up as my way to express my frustration. Our insisting on knowing the truth and the other person does not on a particular subject can be perceived by the other person as being called a liar which can be perceived as an insult. Instead of saying "I know the truth, and you don't," it is better to say "I believe this is truth but acknowledge that you feel your opinion is also truth," so can we just leave it at that? Can we just stop using the word "truth" to describe our opinion?

There are excellent rules for Bible interpretation, or Hermeneutics. It sounds like neither Christian A or B. Has a clue about that,

This is something they teach in seminary. But I think all Christians need to take a course in this.

It's gotten to the point fir me, tat when someone comes up with a cuckoo doctrine or idea, I can go to the verse, read before and after the proof text, and see exactly where the person went wrong.

My most unfavourite verse, is an out of context partial verse the Word Faith movement uses.Isa. 53:5d. So it is the 4th line of the 5 the verse, in Isa. 53. 1/4 if a verse is never enough to make a doctrine out of.

It is a Messianic chapter, to do with Jesus. It is prophecies concerning his first coming, or the incarnation.

What is Isaiah about? It is about calling people to repentance, from their sins. It is not a book about healing the body, but healing the soul. Through faith in Christ. Isaiah is packed with prophecies about Jesus.

What is interesting about Isa 53:5d, is even in the Greek OT, to e Greek speaking Jews had already changed it to mean healing your soul, 300 years BC.

The verse does have one other important point. It shows that when Jesus comes, he will heal people to confirm he fulfills the OT prophecy! But it was never meant to be a gift accompanying salvation, that everyone receives.

I might try to do some posts about Bible interpretation. Because some like to present real truth, while others make up bad rules, because they don't know the Bible well enough, or how to interpret the Bible correctly. If anyone is interested, I could make a series of posts in this topic!

To be more specific, the different opinions between Christian A and Christian B are

Christian A: Unconfessed sins affect our relationship with God. Our sins can block our prayers which has nothing to do with salvation. Whether salvation can be lost or not is not the point.

Christian B: Unconfessed sins, because they have already been forgiven since conversion, do not affect our relationship with God. He will not ever turn away from believers. No believers will ever lose their salvation.

Both use Bible verses to back up their opinions and are confident they are correct. The author of the article's point is when we disagree with someone in what we look at as truth, we should not conclude we are right.

Still sounds like situational ethics to me. Did either A or B defend their opinion with Bible verses?

I think we do need to start with the assumption that we are right. But, we can change. I have changed major theological ideas in my time, when the Scriptures proved me wrong. Like soteriology. But I assumed I was right, until a series of people showed me different passages where I was wrong. But we have to start somewhere, even if we change! My change probably took 25 years. I'm now firm, having been on both sides of the debate, that my first choice was wrong. I doubt I will change that doctrine again.

Again, basing things on Scripture, passages, and using good hermeneutical rules makes it easy for anyone to change beliefs. I guess I did change my views, soon after I had learned about Bible interpretation!

PS maybe the person who wrote the article was wrong about being wrong?

Both sides use Bible verses. I don't think there are many areas in the Bible where believers can disagree on, hopefully not. When that happens it is usually because the two are from different denominations. In the process of trying to be the correct one our claim of knowing the truth, and the other person does not can become an unnecessary insult to the other person.

What the author of the article says is what we think is truth does not necessarily be truth. His point is to stop arguing and stop insisting we are right and the other person is wrong because there are some subjects that it is impossible to know what the truth is, which does not mean there is no truth, it just means we don't know what it is.