GandalfTheWise

Great news from the doctor.  Bruising from her fall was causing the symptoms.  Painful, but not too serious.  She's probably still in for an extended stay, but doing well. 

My MIL was in assisted living and had a bad reaction to the COVID vaccine.  She ended up in the ER after collapsing (middle of the night and was stuck on the floor for a couple hours out of reach of the signaling cords) with low oxygen levels a few days after getting it.  (No positive tests this entire time in the facility until last week among residents who'd gotten the vaccine and none among workers).   It's been up and down, for almost a week, and was moved out of ICU a day ago and doing better.  No one allowed in the hospital to see her.  Just got a call from the doctor that she's got internal bleeding and is heading for an emergency transfusion.     We're not getting a clear sense of "not good but at least somewhat routine" or "last ditch efforts".  

7 hours ago, David1701 said:

I would recommend you to read "Christianity in Crisis", by Hank Hanegraff, which is not about Joyce Meyer, but about that genre of false teaching (people like Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, etc.); but you would probably trash him, as you have trashed me.

In a rather ironic development, Hank Hanegraaff (known as the "Bible Answer Man" on his radio show joined the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017 and has come under fire from various heresy hunting groups.   Many of them are convinced he's departed from the faith and is not a Christian.  There is also some controversy associated with allegations of plagiarism in some of his books.

The core issue I see is whether our faith is in God Himself via relationship or in intellectual propositions we hold about God (including the Bible).

If our faith (i.e. trust and confidence) is in God Himself and is based in how He has revealed Himself to us in our lives and made us new creations in Christ, it is a relational type of trust like we might have in loved ones.   It will grow over time.

If our faith consists of not having doubts about intellectual propositions we hold about God, it's a lifelong struggle to explain away and deal with every doubt we have.  Many eventually simply cover their eyes and ears and others have crises of faith when the doubts become too much.  Sadly, many of the books and articles written about the Bible come from the perspective of "how to eliminate every intellectual doubt you have" which turns trust in scripture into an all or nothing proposition where the slightest doubt about one thing casts doubt on the entire Bible.

Can the Bible be trusted as an adequate revelation of God for salvation through Jesus Christ?  Of course.  Can the Bible be trusted as a guide to living and belief?  Of course.   Did God use fallible human beings in the origin and transmission and translation of the Bible?  Of course.      I think much of what we believe about inerrancy is shown by how we act toward the Bible via how we read it, study it, and follow it.  

6 hours ago, Thewhitedove said:

I love her as my mother, and want her to know Jesus, but she scares me too much to tell her the Gospel. How should I proceed? Every time I try to pray for her, I just get flooded with lots of negative feelings about her. I would have a loving,warm relationship with her in the morning and have forgiven her for everything, but the scars are still there. How can I get past this? 

One thing to remember is that it is NOT your responsibility to save your mother, it's God's.   To what degree He uses you in that process is up to Him.  Do things as God leads you to, not out of guilt or pressure or a sense of what "good" Christians are "supposed" to do and say.   At first, it might be as simple as offering to pray for her when she's at a low point, saying a few kind words, or surprising her with a card in the mail.  More opportunities to share more might arise as time goes on.

Also, take care of yourself.  Often our relationships with our parents carry some baggage, even in a good family.  Over time, God can lead us on a path that heals us from some of that.   Often our current reaction to what was a strained relationship will tell us how much healing has or has not occurred.   Sometimes it's like the old adage about oxygen masks in aircraft, you need to get your own on before you help the person next to you.  You may or may not be in a good place to do a lot of interaction with your mother right now.

I had a boss once that made my life miserable.  Nice enough guy, but we were a terrible mismatch and he was not in a role that suited his strengths.  He pretty much shot down everything I tried to do.  I got to the point I couldn't stand to be around him and was actively looking for other jobs.  After he got removed from that position and moved elsewhere, we didn't interact much.  Later he ended up in another position where we were in different roles as colleagues and we got along well.  Eventually, that work he'd been shooting down became stuff he was bragging up in sales presentations as critical company capabilities.  A few years ago, I had a consulting job that he was involved with, and I enjoyed working with him.  Another job just came up where I might be interacting with him again (I haven't seen him in years), and I find myself looking forward to catching up.   Sometimes distance, time, and a definite change of roles are necessary to reset a relationship into a more healthy form.   It sounds like to some degree you might still be in a child/adult relationship with your mother rather than in an adult/adult relationship where you can stand on your own as an equal.

41 minutes ago, Beppybuva said:

Who am I?  If I die to Christ then what is left?  Who are we at our core?  We are made anew in Christ. So none of my past experiences, relationships, etc. make me who I am?  What’s left?  Am I just this person that worships God and reads the Bible and that’s it?  

I feel glib. Not sure who I am. 

At a deeper level, I believe that God made us all as unique creations meant to reflect His glory in some way unique to us.  In one sense, we are each individual works of art being crafted by God.  Often, the transforming work of Christ in our lives is considered only in terms of eliminating sin, increasing holiness, eternal life, and being busy doing ministry.  However, I think there is something deeper than that which we often miss.  

I spent the first thirty or so years of my Christian walk focused on worrying about what God wanted me to do.  Then for a season of a year or so, He put me into a figurative desert away from most of those activities and put me in front of a figurative mirror.  I had no clue who I was.  I emerged from that desert realizing that God was more concerned about who I was rather than what I was busy doing for Him.  I had a much better sense of who He had made me to be.  I found that ministry starting flowing naturally out through my life rather than being something I had to strain and labor at.  I went from defining my value as person from how much fruit I could bear to being who God made me to be.  I went from seeing my gifts and talents as a definition of who I was to seeing them as tools to be used.

One author who delves into this idea in depth is John Eldredge.   One of his books, ``Waking the Dead'' gets into these ideas.  

It's a touchy topic depending on someone's beliefs.  Here are some of the issues that drive things (unorganized and in no particular order).

Is baptism focused primarily on the individual or on the body of Christ?  If it is focused on the individual, then the only thing that matters is that someone baptizes them somewhere and somehow.  If it is focused on the body of Christ, then it is about how the community helps extend baptism to a believer to get the largest possible blessing from it.

Some see it on a spectrum of spiritual effect.  At one end are those who see it primarily as a public testimony of salvation and at the other end are those who see it as a necessary part of salvation.

Some see it as initiated by the individual and others see it as initiated by the God through the church to individuals.

Some see it on a range from unnecessary to recommended to highly recommended to mandatory.

Some see it as the definition of being a "Christian" and that you cannot be a member of a church without having been baptized at some point.  Others see the definition of being a "Christian" as testifying to a saving work of Christ in their lives.

Some see the mode of baptism (sprinkling, dousing, or immersion) as critical to whether or not a "real" baptism has been done.

Some see the words spoken by the baptizer to the baptized person as critical and that the right words must be used.

Many Christians make dogmatic statements about baptism and can get quite touchy when someone disagrees.   I try to understand the unspoken assumptions someone is using when I interact with them on the subject and then focus on those things.

21 hours ago, Riverwalker said:

But what is your take?

Love is the motivation that causes us to do something rather than nothing.   Wisdom, gentleness, kindness, discernment, maturity, and the like are what enable us to actually help someone rather than do damage.    Over the years, I've observed Christians who can wield truth like a skillful surgeon wields a scalpel to bring healing and I've observed Christians who try to remove a sliver with a butcher knife or axe that mostly brings pain and scars and hard feelings.  There's pain both ways but the one brings healing and the other doesn't.  

Telling someone what they are doing is wrong is easy.  Helping them walk through their struggles so that they can change is much harder.  That overweight person who can't say no to food might really be struggling with the horror of sexual abuse. Giving them lectures about dieting and self-control and how their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit is more likely to discourage than help.  They need healing, not lectures.   We don't know what the real cause of some of things we see really is.  Sometimes it is a matter of ignorance and our enlightening them is what they need.  However, sometimes the cause is much deeper and what we are worried about is a symptom of something much deeper.  

Talk is cheap.  Anyone can point out what someone is doing wrong.  Action whereby we involve ourselves in someone's life to help them do what is needed to change is far different and fewer are willing to do that.

28 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Light isn't a part of nature. It can never be physical. It doesn't have mass.

I'm well aware that this balance of Good and Evil is a trick of Satan to generate false god's and religions. We only have this view while were are here in this fallen reality. There won't be a balance after this is over.

You are being hypercritical for no reason.

The last sunburn I had felt pretty real to me.   Electromagnetic radiation is part of nature.  It's why microwave ovens work and why we wear sunglasses and why we can get radiation poisoning.   Statements like "Light isn't part of nature" do not point to the gospel, they obscure it by generating fruitless discussions over semantics such as what is the real definition of "light" and "nature".

Genesis 1 is explicit in including light in the list of created things.  Standard Christian understanding of Genesis 1 includes light as a part of creation and not something separate from it.   As near as I can tell, what is being said is something like this.  Creation consists of two parts, a spiritual world and a physical world.  The spiritual world is the good part of creation and the physical world is the fallen part.   Light is part of the spiritual world and not the physical world.   This is basically a retelling of old gnostic thought presented using terms from modern physics.

I'll be blunt.  After the second post or so, I could not tell if this thread is an attempt to troll us or is a sincerely held belief of a Christian.  I've proceeded on the basis of assuming the best and trying to help.  The core issue is ultimately that this belief is one which builds walls and reduces communication.  It is outside the mainstream of accepted Christian doctrine which will arouse suspicion and reduce credibility.  It essentially accuses scientists of not really understanding science which reduces credibility.  It in essence claims to have a special understanding of reality that most do not have.  Such claims need quite a bit to back them up other than repeating the same things over and over.  The question is this, is pushing this belief gaining credibility and allowing easier avenues to share the gospel?  Or is it creating distractions and debates trying to explain it?  And ultimately, is this belief focusing people's attention on the person of Jesus Christ and His atoning work, or is it a discussion that takes on a life of its own and never gets around to mentioning Christ?

43 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Is it changing the message or is it looking at it from a different angle?

Using analogies is looking at it from a different angle.  Claiming old gnostic teachings (long rejected by the church) as absolute truth is changing the message.

The idea of using aspects of QM does gives nice analogies for explaining what omniscience or omnipresence is like.  I may use those myself some day.   This is looking at the message from a different angle.  It is similar to Jesus talking about the kingdom of God is like leaven, or a pearl, or a sower.  It uses things in the physical world to explain aspects of spiritual things in concrete easy to understand terms.  This can be a helpful thing.

In contrast, proclaiming science proves dualism (spiritual world good and material world bad) is basically restating something long rejected by the church and claiming it as absolute truth.  Those who accept dualism usually end up falling into teachings that explicitly oppose Christian teaching.  In this case, statements such as God is the EM Vector field are in essence rejecting God as Transcendent Creator and making Him something more akin to the eastern view of the universe being God.  Christian belief makes a clear distinction that God is not part of creation nor is creation part of God.  Trying to turn "God is Light" into a statement that God is somehow part of creation is moving well outside of the message the church believes.

Christian belief understands that saying "God is light" is an analogy describing one aspect of what God is like.  Non-christian belief might say that "Light is god".  That is what statements like "God is the EM Vector field" are doing.  This is changing the message of Christianity into something akin to eastern pantheism by saying God is part of nature and nature is part of God.  It is one thing to say that God can reach out and touch and change creation in some manner.  It is by far another to make God a part of creation.

Bottom line, this is not a helpful and fruitful teaching.  It is not bringing insight and a deeper understanding of the character and nature of God.  It is merely muddying the waters between God and His Creation.  It is not a profound new revelation or insight that is going to change the face of Christianity by ushering in a new understanding of God and creation.  It seems to mostly be a rehashing of millennia old ideas that the church has long rejected.

4 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Yes, delete a video of a Catholic man trying to show God is light. Makes sense.

There is a section of this site where videos are allowed.  They are not allowed elsewhere on the site.   It is a practice we all follow. 

You can post a video in the appropriate section and then link to it in other threads.  That's what we all do.

49 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

I support the God is Light guy, but that isn't me personally. You can find me making Atheist's mad here

I skimmed the thread.  They weren't mad.  They mostly seemed to be a combination of puzzled, annoyed, and amused.   Most didn't seem to take it seriously.   The general tone I picked up on was mostly a combination of raised eyebrows and laughs.   I think the one who said something like not being able to tell if it was preaching, ignorance, or trolling summed up the general reaction. 

Focusing on  spiritual/physical dualism via a superficial understanding and description of quantum mechanics as the important thing to believe is distracting away from the person of Jesus Christ.   Putting most of one's focus on presenting a belief that sits on the fringes of Christianity and is close to some old gnostic heresies is not helpful.  This is not an effective way of doing evangelism and is probably counterproductive.

The original work at quantumcreation contains a few nice analogies from quantum mechanics about things such as omniscience and omnipotence.  I may use those myself someday.  But that is all they are, analogies.  Pushing analogies past their breaking point and trying to explain them as being literal descriptions of reality accomplishes nothing except to lose credibility with one's listeners.  One of the most important things any Christian has is their credibility.  It's what gives people confidence in what we are saying.  If we lose credibility, people have little confidence in what we are saying.

I've been down dead end paths myself.  It's why I'm taking the time to respond to this thread.  This is a dead end that's not going to bear much fruit.  There are much more fruitful ways to present the gospel and much more fruitful things to spend time studying.  

3 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

This is all very pointless for Christians as they already believe. I'm trying to get feedback on it before taking it to the unbelievers. Anything that wakes them up is welcome.

Why not just share a testimony of what Jesus Christ has done in your life?   That's what God has been leading Christians to do for the better part of two millennia now.  It's a tried and true method.    There's nothing here that is going to revolutionize evangelism, but rather will more likely distract away from sharing Christ.

I gave a serious look at the quantumcreation site as well as your past posts on other sites such as the the scienceforum one.  The reception these type of ideas received there is probably fairly indicative of how effective this will be as a tool of evangelism.  The quantumcreation site is put together by a person with a degree in psychology (according to his LinkedIn profile) not the hard sciences.  He gave a couple nice analogies that I am going to remember, but that's all they are.  They are not proof of God's existence nor some of His traits.  

In my opinion, the most important thing is not letting stuff like this become a distraction away from the gospel and growing in Christ.  I spent a career in R&D and as an applied scientist.  I am curious and love new ideas.  That's why I spent the time looking at this.   I've successfully challenged the status quo and existing practices on various occasions.   But what I learned is that for each time I successfully did this, I probably had a dozen ideas that didn't pan out as I studied them further.  I've learned to critically examine new ideas to separate the gems from the rocks.   When other people do suggest new ideas, I'm willing to listen and evaluate them.  If there was something here, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter.   However, I think that the quest to try to convince people that the fall was from a spiritual realm to a physical one so that a dubious connection between quantum mechanics and the spiritual realm will prove God exists is futile.   

8 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Do you think a spiritual being in a spiritual universe has any idea they are not physical?

Interference patterns are proof of God. God is all possible paths of the EM Vector Field ..Light. Interference requires all possible paths to taken same time, virtually. We know this happens because we can get the pattern sending one wave at a time.

This physical reality of the fallen is an infinite sum of local waves. Disorder.

FYI, per site policy, videos are not allowed in threads such as this one.  There is a separate section for posting videos where they will be reviewed.  My understanding is that in the past there were problems with inappropriate content.  Now all videos must be approved to avoid problems.

I've got a PhD in Physics.  I watched the video since I am in a better position than most to understand the terms being used.  It's basically a restatement of what Paul said in quoting Epimenides to the Athenians ("In him we live and move and have our being") except dressed up in technical terms.  Bottom line is that presentations like this don't prove anything.   If one believes God is Creator of all, then creation obviously points to a Creator.  If one believes the universe is all that exists, then its existence points only to the fact something exists rather than nothing. 

In many places, the Bible uses various analogies from the physical world to explain what God is like.  Things such as light, love, rock, fortress, deliverer, shield, shepherd, door, bread of life, and others are used to describe aspects of God and our relationship to Him.  What is being presented in these posts and the video is an elevation of a single one of those analogies to being a literal physical description of God.  "God is light" is being selected from among all the analogies and being given a special status (and running counter to Genesis 1 where light is specifically said to be a part of the physical universe that God created). 

The real problem I see is with a statement like "God is all possible paths of the EM Vector Field" (which is really of saying "God is physical light in the material universe").  This is skirting with heresy by making God the Creator a part of His creation or by making His creation a part of Him.  It is more closely related to eastern religions that basically say that the universe is god than it is to Christianity that says God is the transcendent Creator of all and that His creation is distinct from Him.   It is taking an analogy in the Bible of "God is light" and turning into a statement of physical scientific fact.    What I am hearing in this is the following "proof" of God's existence.   God is literally light.  Light exists.  Therefore, God exists.     It would be well within Christian thought and belief to use analogies about light to describe aspects of God.  However, that is far different than saying that He is physical light.

Non-standard usage of physics terms without clear definition is not really conveying clear ideas.

Genesis 1 is fairly clear on the point that God created man from the dust of the earth.   Genesis does not seem to contain any language that suggests all of creation suddenly transformed from spiritual to physical existence at the point of the fall of humanity.  This strongly suggests the earth was created as physical rather than spiritual.  Given that Adam was made from the same stuff as the earth, it's quite a stretch to claim he and Eve were totally spiritual beings when they were created.  

As a historical note, some early gnostics believed some variations of the spiritual world being good and the material world being evil.  This was rejected by the church.  As far as I can tell, some variation of old gnostic beliefs seems to be what is being suggested in this thread.  

If anyone in the US is looking for a new political home, the American Solidarity Party is one to take a look at.  The home page is at https://solidarity-party.org.    I just sat in a remote strategy meeting conducted by their national leadership.  I was impressed with the general positive tone.  I think that this is a group I could get behind.

Here's their statement of principles:

The American Solidarity Party is based in the tradition of Christian democracy. We acknowledge the state should be pluralistic while upholding a vision of the common good of all and of each individual informed by Christian tradition and acknowledging the primacy of religion in each person’s life. These are our principles:

Sanctity of Life: Human life is sacred, from conception to natural death. We thus oppose abortion, euthanasia, and any direct and intentional attacks on innocent human life. We oppose the death penalty as an unnecessary measure to protect human life. 

Social Justice: We affirm a special collective responsibility to the most vulnerable members of society and call for societal structures that uphold the equal value and dignity of each person, regardless of any personal characteristics. This requires efforts to address systemic and historic injustices, including long-standing racial injustice, in a way that confronts inequalities that disparage innate personal dignity. 

Community-Oriented Society: Humans are created to live in communities, and the proper organization of our communities is necessary for the flourishing of our societies. Society consists of various institutions and communities, like families, governments, and religious groups, whose primary authority over their own affairs should be respected and defended. Higher levels of government should serve to empower and support lower levels of authority, rather than replace them. 

Centrality of the Family: Natural marriage and the family are the central institutions of society and must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. As the family provides for the nurturing of children, it is the imperative of the state to advance the wellbeing of all families, while respecting the duty of family members to fulfill their roles freely. 

Economic Security: The state and subsidiary organizations must act to remedy economic injustice by creating conditions for widespread ownership of property and production. Personal, cooperative, and social ownership are all valid in a just society. Workers’ rights and a family wage must be ensured, and those who cannot work should receive income adequate for full participation in society. 

Care for the Environment: Cultivation and good stewardship ought to characterize the relationship between humanity and creation. The earth and its fruits are universally destined for the benefit of all people. Both government and civil society have a responsibility to protect natural resources, now and for future generations. 

Peace and International Solidarity: Peace is the fruit of justice and requires solidarity among peoples and nations. Aid and trade policies must advance justice, sustainability, and human flourishing. Diplomatic and nonviolent means of resolution must be exhausted before violent means can be considered. Military action must strictly adhere to just-war principles. 

2 hours ago, Iamnikki said:

I'm broken. Yet I don't know how to redeem or heal myself. I feel like a lost cause. Pray? Yes.  I do. But I can't stop myself from feeling this way over and over again. I also feel sad for failing God over and over again. sorry if it didn't make sense. Just please answer the question 

It makes a lot of sense.   Sometimes those problems and issues we are most focused on can be symptoms of a deeper problem which is what God really wants to deal with in our lives.   Sometimes God heals those things in a sudden sovereign way, sometimes growth and maturity slowly reduces them, sometimes we need to send time with a Christian counselor. 

Years ago, I'd hit a point where whenever I'd look in the mirror the only thing I could do is glare at myself and think "Loser!".   I couldn't extend the grace and encouragement I freely offered others to myself.  Over the period of a year or so, God took me into a figurative desert to show me who He had created me to be as a unique individual.  During that time, those negative thoughts and feelings just vanished.  God led me across a few authors and a Christian forum (sadly now closed) where I learned a lot from others at a similar point in their lives.

 Hang in there.   God made you to be a unique person that will reflect His glory to the world in a way unique to you.  There's a world and enemy out there that doesn't want you to be that person.  

On 1/4/2021 at 6:04 PM, Riverwalker said:

I have always been of the opinion that Jesus is our good shepherd and pastors,  no matter how good and devoted they are , are mere hirelings.

Matthew 7 seems to be pretty explicit here.  One Flock, One Shepherd

Matthew 7:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

 

No doubt they are given charge over the sheep, to guide and teach them, but does imply ownership? Or am I just reading more into than there might be?

I'd note that the verses quoted in the OP come from John 10 rather than Matthew 7 in case someone tries to look them up or wonders where they on my list below.

From my Greek concordance of the NT, here are the verses in the NT which contain the Greek verb to shepherd: Matt 2:6, Luke 17:7, John 21:16, Acts 20:28, I Cor 9:7, I Pet 5:2, Jude 1:12, and Rev 2:27, 7:17, 12:5, and 19:15.

The Greek noun for shepherd appears in:  Matt: 9:36, 25:32, 26:31, Mark 6:34, 14:27, Luke 2:8,15,18,20, John 10:2,11,12,14,16,  Eph 4:11, Heb 13:20, I Pet 2:25.

I'm too lazy to cut and paste these all into this post.  Here's a couple relevant ones which use the term with regard to human leaders.

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,which he bought with his own blood.  Acts 20:28  NIV  (Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders.)

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”  John 21:16 NIV  ("Take care of" = Greek verb to shepherd)

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve;  I Peter 5:2 NIV

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, Eph 4:11 NIV.  (Pastors = Greek noun for shepherds).

Such passages as John 10 (Jesus as the Good Shepherd) or Psalm 23 (The LORD is my shepherd) are pretty clear.   But I think it's also fairly clear that the NT makes references to a gift or office of shepherd or shepherding.   There are OT passages as well which refer to leaders of Israel as shepherds in both a positive and negative sense.  In Jeremiah 3:15 God promises good shepherds to His people.  In Ezekiel 34, there is a condemnation of poor shepherds.  

I think it's reasonably well established that scripture uses the analogy of a shepherd for leaders in some circumstances and that there can be good or bad shepherds.  

Terms such as assurance tend to be somewhat ambiguous because different Christians use them in different ways.  Some use them in precisely defined theological ways and others in less definite emotional ways.  Some tie them to doctrinal beliefs and others to feelings.  Some Christians make a big deal out of phrases such as "know for sure" to describe assurance and as a proof of salvation.  I recall once when a fellow believer doing door to door evangelism knocked at my door and asked if I knew for sure I was saved.  I made the mistake of replying that I had much confidence in my salvation.  After I said that, I couldn't convince him I was a Christian because I didn't give the exact answer he wanted to hear.  Even after I gave a quick version of my testimony, he kept trying to lead me in a sinner's prayer because I hadn't immediately said I knew for sure I was saved.

Having listened to many testimonies of many Christians with various doctrinal outlooks using different words to describe what seems to be the same things, this is the pattern I see.   Most Christians testify of some type of conversion event and experience (be it called being saved, saying a sinner's prayer, being born again, accepting Christ, becoming a Christian, or whatever) at which they become aware of God's presence in some way in their heart.   In the months and years following that, most Christians also talk about having intellectual and emotional doubts and insecurities about God and our standing with Him at various times and for various reasons.   Many Christians attempt to resolve these issues (usually with limited success) by reading apologetics materials, trying to convince themselves intellectually to have no doubts about various doctrinal beliefs, memorizing particular Bible verses, and in general trying to work harder at being a good Christian.  However, the one pattern I've seen that usually holds is that our trust and confidence in God simply grows more and more over months, years, and decades of getting to know Him more and more from His working in our hearts and lives and in those around us.  In other words, the more we get to know God Himself via our daily spiritual walk, the more trust and confidence we have in Him and the more assurance we have that we are indeed His.   Ultimately, our trust and confidence and faith rests in knowing God Himself and not just convincing ourselves to have no doubts about particular doctrinal or biblical facts about God. 

3 hours ago, Thewhitedove said:

When it comes to the Great Commission, how do you share your faith? Do you just come out with it or do you wait for opportunities int he conversation to open up? 

My observation of Christians over the decades is that we are all different.  Often, rather than figuring out how God created us to best do certain things, we try to copy other Christians and then feel guilty when it doesn't work for us.   We need to learn how things like prayer, Bible reading and study, fellowship, discipleship, and evangelism best work in our own lives.  Some churches and groups of Christians can exert a lot of peer pressure to do some of these things in a particular way and make us feel guilty when those particular ways don't work for us.

When it comes to explicitly sharing the gospel, I've seen some Christians with a personality such that they can pretty much say anything to anyone at anytime without offending them.  I've got one friend who seems to naturally bring every conversation with anyone to God at some point.  Living in the midwest, his slow southern accent is a help.  His laid back personality means that he can trivially shrug off rejection and think maybe next time.   My wife is a person that some people will naturally start spilling their guts to if she just stands there listening.  A former pastor is comfortable asking if he could pray for someone for something in their life whenever he had short conversations with strangers (service people in stores or restaurants, sitting next to someone on a bus, etc.)  

A few important things to keep in mind are these.  First, it is the Holy Spirit working in people's hearts that draws them to God.  These things happen in God's timing, not ours.  Evangelism that bears fruit is when we do what God prompts us to do at a time and place where He is drawing someone to Himself.    Second, people respond to the gospel differently.  I know people who responded the first time they heard it.  I know people who spent years or decades angry at the gospel before responding.  In other words, some people have rejected the gospel many times which means that the person sharing didn't see any immediate fruit but rejection.   A common theme in many of those long-term hard cases was that they had seen a few Christians in their lives that they simply couldn't explain but knew they were different somehow.   Thirdly, we have to have a walk that backs up the talk.  We are new creations in Christ which means that we are being transformed and changed so that things such as the fruit of the Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23) naturally start emerging in our lives and becoming apparent to those around us.  We have to live and speak in such a way that our words have credibility.  Those around us are often well aware that we are Christians.  Often the changes that occur in our lives that have the biggest impact are things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and self-control being more apparent because those are things many people want to see in their own lives.  

Speaking for myself, I don't hide the fact I'm a Christian, but I don't get in people's faces.  I'm more than capable of apologetics and explaining the gospel (in my own words adapting to the person I'm speaking to), but my sense is that for most people it is not intellectual questions keeping them from God but rather reaching a point where God is drawing them.  It is often when they hit a point of questioning their life and that they ask the real questions that are worrying them.  I just try to be sensitive to where people are at and when I feel like God is leading me to say or do something.  Probably the most unique thing about me that works is that I see every person as a unique creation of God and a potential work of art or masterpiece that God (through the atoning work of Christ and work of the Holy Spirit) will craft to show His glory to the world in some unique way.   I naturally try to see people as the unique person God wants them to become rather than what they are like now.  It means that I am often one of the first Christians someone meets who simply accepts them and appreciates them and cares for them as a unique person since I  trust to God to be able to craft them into the person He created them to be.  For years, it bothered me that I didn't seem to accomplish much, but now I realize that I've probably opened the door for many other Christians to share with many people later by giving them a small glimpse of a loving Father's gaze rather than the glare of an angry vengeful judge.  It's simply how God wired me to think and feel about people and I enjoy doing it.

The bottom line is that the book of Acts contains a variety of testimonies and how evangelism works.  There's Peter speaking to a crowd on the day of Pentecost, Philip out in the desert overhearing a guy with questions about the OT, Paul and Silas in a jail preventing a suicide when the jailer's life was about to end, Paul debating philosophy in Athens.   The many testimonies of Christians I've heard in my life have ranged from being one of hundreds to go forward at a Billy Graham crusade to having a next door neighbor or Sunday school teacher share the gospel to reading a gospel tract a stranger handed them.

 God's created you to be a unique person who will share His love with others in some way unique to you.  He'll bring opportunities into your life to do this in various ways.  As you practice doing this, you'll get better and better at it and enjoy it more and more.

7 hours ago, Workman said:

Looking for recommendations for a Bible-based topical reference books.  Doesn't necessarily have to be a Bible, like Nave's, but could include something in encyclopedic form.  Forget the online stuff, I have a hard time staying focused online, add to that I get VDT headaches.  Besides, I'm old school, prefer hard-copy references books or sets of books.

So, besides Nave's, what other topic-based biblical reference books have others used and liked?  (I don't dislike Nave's, it's on my list, but just wondering what else is out there that others like w/o having to spend hours online searching).

I can't speak to them from personal experience, but Herbert Lockyer wrote a number of systematic books such as "All the Apostles of the Bible", "All the Prayers of the Bible", "All the Parables of the Bible", etc.  

You could always try to check out a couple of these via a local public library inter-library loan program to try them out before buying.

A simple Bing search of the student's name yields more detailed articles and information.  His parents were Coptic Christians who fled Egypt to Canada (and if some reporting is correct are doctors themselves).  As near as I can tell, he put up a long FB article comparing abortion to the holocaust and then took it down shortly thereafter due to complaints.  That was over a year ago.  My sense is the two biggest mistakes he made after that were not recording the seven interviews with the one individual he claims was going after him and not immediately retaining a lawyer for legal advice as soon as the university starting taking action against him.  With the absence of that, it will be hard to prove the university administrator was out of line in anything he said.  However, if the last article below is correct, the court case is still active and the university violated its own policies in this case.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/medical-student-expelled-for-pro-life-pro-gun-views-court-refuses-to-reinstate-him/

https://winnipegsun.com/opinion/columnists/giesbrecht-its-ok-to-have-unpopular-opinions

https://thepostmillennial.com/medical-student-expelled-for-refusing-to-change-his-personal-beliefs/