Michelle, this isn't "nitpicking." In the OP we aren't told, "One says there is all sorts of evidence." And that's all I was pointing out. No "nitpicking" just an observation.Michelle wrote:This is a nitpick and wildly off topic, but this is not different from the OP at all, it's exactly the same information that was given there.RND wrote:This seems slightly different than the OP. More info added. You have a "he said/she said" situation on your hands. I am more apt in such a situation to trust the one that denies.mattrose wrote:Better to trust? Trust whom?
You have 2 Christians, both members of your church family, claiming opposite things. One says there is all sorts of evidence. The other says there is no proof. I'm asking about a scenario in which your heart/mind tends to 'trust' the former over the latter.
For clarification? You bet. I would trust the one making the denial unless I had first had information or knowledge of the situation.Was that really necessary?Trust the "denier."That said, I get your advice. So far it seems we have
1) Trust the denial until you are proven otherwise
The "won't He" is referring to God and what He does. I have no reason to believe Matt doesn't trust God. In fact, that's a given with me.Why did you ask, "won't He?" Was there something Matt said that makes you think that he doesn't trust God?Won't He? But once He does should we stop loving?2) Trust God to expose sin in due time
[/quote]They're not.Well, I hope not.All in all, the 2 pieces of advice are not entirely different.
Great. Agreement!