ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[God_Is_Truth]

so according to Z Man,

1. Deductive reasoning is out the window

and

2. there is no true "freedom" associated with the will of a person.

Z Man, why do you insist that we get rid of deductive reasoning? God gave us that too remember? why do you think he would write a book that requires us to totally avoid something he gave us?

furthermore, i see no reason to abandon deductive logic when interpreting scripture. there are plenty of places when it can be used just fine.

example:

1. Jesus forgave sins
2. only God is allowed to forgive sins.
conclusion: Jesus is God.

deductive logic and scripture CAN go together. God gave us the ability to comprehend logic for a reason.

as for the freedom of a person's will......

i freely write this post, i freely breathe, i freely look around the room, i freely think, i freely talk, i freely walk, i freely choose what to eat, i freely choose when to sleep, i freely choose to listen to my music, i freely choose to turn on my computer. i freely choose which path to walk.

all of reality, every day, every moment, every thought, every single second tells us that we have free will.

but i know that doesn't matter to you. all you care about is your interpretation of scripture (inductively of course) that says that we DON'T have free will! but there are plenty of people who hold a biblically faithful view that says we DO have free will.

so your postition Z Man, isn't even one you have to hold! in other words, you CHOOSE to hold it!

now isn't that ironic for someone who denies free will :chuckle:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. (Prv. 16:9)

We have a will, but it's not free...

that's deductive logic.

1. a man's heart plans his way
2. but the Lord directs his steps
conclusion: we have a will, but it's not free

Z Man has already gone against his own statement of limiting himself to inductive logic only! that sure was fast! :chuckle:

 

[Z Man]

I must say GIT, your replies are becoming more pathetic with time...

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Z Man, why do you insist that we get rid of deductive reasoning? God gave us that too remember? why do you think he would write a book that requires us to totally avoid something he gave us?

furthermore, i see no reason to abandon deductive logic when interpreting scripture. there are plenty of places when it can be used just fine.

example:

1. Jesus forgave sins
2. only God is allowed to forgive sins.
conclusion: Jesus is God.

deductive logic and scripture CAN go together. God gave us the ability to comprehend logic for a reason.

You obviously do not have the slightest idea what the difference, or the definition, for 'deductive' reasoning and 'inductive' reasoning are. The example you just gave is a prime one for inductive reasoning! You used Scripture to support Scripture! Deductive reasoning is using manly wisdom and logic to support Scripture. It's basing Scripture around your doctrine, instead of building your doctrine around Scripture (which would be inductive reasoning).

Deductive reasoning is making a 'hypothesis' about a certain situation or idea, like what scientists do. Sherlock Holmes used deductive reasoning in his work. It's going from 'general to specific', unlike inductive, which goes from 'specific to general'. Deductive reasoning in and of itself is not wrong, but using it to study the Bible is, not to mention dangerous. Anyone can formulate an idea in thier head, or a hypothesis, such as 'men have free will', and then read the bible 'deductively' to prove thier point. It's dangerous and wrong, and it's exactly what you do with the doctrine of free will. It's not taught in the Bible, yet the OV'ers believe that it is, because they study the Bible deductively.

School yourself, please, by reading this article.

as for the freedom of a person's will......

i freely write this post, i freely breathe, i freely look around the room, i freely think, i freely talk, i freely walk, i freely choose what to eat, i freely choose when to sleep, i freely choose to listen to my music, i freely choose to turn on my computer. i freely choose which path to walk.

all of reality, every day, every moment, every thought, every single second tells us that we have free will.

That's creating a hypothesis, without any Biblical evidence whatsoever. You make the 'hypothesis' that man has free will, then when you read the Bible, that's what you see, although it's not there. You force it to say it exists...

You may plan your ways, but GOD DIRECTS YOUR STEPS!! Do you not understand that???

but i know that doesn't matter to you. all you care about is your interpretation of scripture (inductively of course) that says that we DON'T have free will! but there are plenty of people who hold a biblically faithful view that says we DO have free will.

Anyone who studies the Bible 'deductively' can make it say whatever they want it to say. It's how one 'reads' into it...

Originally posted by Z Man

A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. (Prv. 16:9)

We have a will, but it's not free...

that's deductive logic.

1. a man's heart plans his way
2. but the Lord directs his steps
conclusion: we have a will, but it's not free

Z Man has already gone against his own statement of limiting himself to inductive logic only! that sure was fast!

You really made yourself look like a fool with that response...

:nono: :doh:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

I must say GIT, your replies are becoming more pathetic with time...

this coming from the guy who called logic a theology, said we can't use deductive reasoning to interpret scripture, and says we have no free will but are somehow responsible for our actions anyways. i must say, being called pathetic by you might not be a bad thing

You obviously do not have the slightest idea what the difference, or the definition, for 'deductive' reasoning and 'inductive' reasoning are.

must've been predestined then

The example you just gave is a prime one for inductive reasoning!

???

1. Jesus forgave sins (specific)
2. only God is allowed to forgive sins. (definitional)
conclusion: Jesus is God. (specific conclusion)

how is that inductive? i used the general statement in the specific situation to reach a specific conclusion. how is that NOT deductive?

definitions of inductive and deductive reasoning:

"Deductive reasoning" refers to the process of concluding that something must be true because it is a special case of a general principle that is known to be true.

"Inductive reasoning" (not to be confused with "mathematical induction" or and "inductive proof", which is something quite different) is the process of reasoning that a general principle is true because the special cases you've seen are true. For example, if all the people you've ever met from a particular town have been very strange, you might then say "all the residents of this town are strange". That is inductive reasoning: constructing a general principle from special cases. It goes in the opposite direction from deductive reasoning.


taken from here:

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/plain/questionCorner/deductive.html

please tell me why my example was NOT deductive?

i was definately not going from the one specific to the generalization. if anything, it was the opposite.

You used Scripture to support Scripture!

did you see me cite any? i must've missed it. obviously though, the first one is from scripture. but not the 2nd and not the conclusion. the 2nd comes from the defintion of a sin. the conclusion is just from the form of logic.

Deductive reasoning is using manly wisdom and logic to support Scripture.

manly wisdom? that may be just about the funniest thing i've EVER seen you post :chuckle:

seriously though, where did you come up with that defintion? no WONDER you thought i was using inductive reasoning :doh:

It's basing Scripture around your doctrine, instead of building your doctrine around Scripture (which would be inductive reasoning).

you define inductive reasoning as "building your doctrine around Scripture"?

Deductive reasoning is making a 'hypothesis' about a certain situation or idea, like what scientists do.

that sounds like inductive.....

"Inductive reasoning" is the process of reasoning that a general principle is true because the special cases you've seen are true.

It's going from 'general to specific', unlike inductive, which goes from 'specific to general'

and how was my example NOT doing that? did i make any big clear generalizations? i think not. i made 2 premises and came to a valid conclusion deductively. surely you don't think "Jesus is God" is a generalization?

Deductive reasoning in and of itself is not wrong, but using it to study the Bible is, not to mention dangerous

what's dangerous is believing that God predestines evil men to rape women as well as the holocaust and WWII and every other atrosticy in history.

Anyone can formulate an idea in thier head, or a hypothesis, such as 'men have free will', and then read the bible 'deductively' to prove thier point.

it's the INDUCTIVE ones that are dangerous! they are the ones that go from "God had them destroyed" so "God is an evil person"!

It's dangerous and wrong, and it's exactly what you do with the doctrine of free will.

reading scripture in light of reality is wrong? lol

need i remind you that i find scripture affirming free will?

School yourself, please, by reading this article.

maybe later.

That's creating a hypothesis, without any Biblical evidence whatsoever.

oh!!!!!! you want BIBLICAL evidence of free will?

"choose this day whom you will serve"

how's that?

You make the 'hypothesis' that man has free will, then when you read the Bible, that's what you see, although it's not there. You force it to say it exists...

the only other option is that i was predestined to read it that way.

You may plan your ways, but GOD DIRECTS YOUR STEPS!! Do you not understand that???

not the way you do, no.

Anyone who studies the Bible 'deductively' can make it say whatever they want it to say. It's how one 'reads' into it...

much more true of inductive reasoning than deductive. see example above.

You really made yourself look like a fool with that response...

no, i don't think so. deductive logic is ""Deductive reasoning" refers to the process of concluding that something must be true because it is a special case of a general principle that is known to be true."

where as inductive is "is the process of reasoning that a general principle is true because the special cases you've seen are true"

you can hardly claim that my example was "a general principle is true because the special cases you've seen are true"

by the way, you DO know what inductive reasoning is NOT considered a logically valid form of reasoning? you did know that right? are you ok with interpreting the bible in a way that is not logically valid?

 

[Z Man]

GIT,

Until you read that article, there is no point in debating with you. You don't know what you're talking about...

 

[1Way]

Deductive = involving inferences from general principles

Inductive = reasoning proceeding from particular facts to a general conclusion

The bible probably has thousands of examples of each being used throughout scripture, and neither are particularly right or wrong.

Z Man's link to inductive Bible Study seems pretty neat overall. The website makes some errant gross generalizations which make's Z Man's response more understandable. The example of Scientists using deductive reasoning is in error and well demonstrates the entire fallacy being employed. Scientists also use inductive reasoning, neither is right nor wrong, they just both serve different but useful functions.

Consider their example
They have concluded that the inductive method is better. They did this by examining the (general) problems from deductive reasoning and inferring that therefore inductive reasoning is better.

I agree with inductive bible study! We should let the bible speak prior to our suppositions. But I also realize that they start out with the idea that inductive is better than deductive, and then they expect that their findings in God's word should prove their hypothesis. And that is deductive reasoning. So their foundation serves to disprove their own claim. Although the claim simply seems to be is a simple overstatement.

The fact is that both types of reasoning can be beneficial. But learning from God's word should go from the general to the specific, from the wide context to the narrow. Better than all this manmade thinking, is God's thinking, become a right divider, considering every word from the mouth of God.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by 1Way

Deductive = involving inferences from general principles

Inductive = reasoning proceeding from particular facts to a general conclusion

The bible probably has thousands of examples of each being used throughout scripture, and neither are particularly right or wrong.

Z Man's link to inductive Bible Study seems pretty neat overall. The website makes some errant gross generalizations which make's Z Man's response more understandable. The example of Scientists using deductive reasoning is in error and well demonstrates the entire fallacy being employed. Scientists also use inductive reasoning, neither is right nor wrong, they just both serve different but useful functions.

Consider their example
They have concluded that the inductive method is better. They did this by examining the (general) problems from deductive reasoning and inferring that therefore inductive reasoning is better.

I agree with inductive bible study! We should let the bible speak prior to our suppositions. But I also realize that they start out with the idea that inductive is better than deductive, and then they expect that their findings in God's word should prove their hypothesis. And that is deductive reasoning. So their foundation serves to disprove their own claim. Although the claim simply seems to be is a simple overstatement.

The fact is that both types of reasoning can be beneficial. But learning from God's word should go from the general to the specific, from the wide context to the narrow. Better than all this manmade thinking, is God's thinking, become a right divider, considering everyone word from the mouth of God.

I'm not bashing 'deductive reasoning' and neither was the site. It's good in some ways. I'm not saying that either one is 'bad' or 'good' in a general sense, or to use in secular studies or whatnot.

However, when it comes to Bible study, it's only beneficial if we study the Scriptures inductively. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[1Way]

Z that statement is based upon deduction, you start with the idea

induction is beneficial for bible study, decution is not

and then you can validate that view by showing how certain examples support your idea! The entire precept is based upon deductive reasoning.

How about this, let the bible speak "first and foremost", and let our learning/understanding "follow" God's direction and teaching. ? God's word is primary, our views are secondary or resulting from learning from God's word.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by 1Way

Z that statement is based upon deduction, you start with the idea

induction is beneficial for bible study, decution is not

and then you can validate that view by showing how certain examples support your idea!

Where???

The entire precept is based upon deductive reasoning.

Even so, it doesn't mean that studying the Bible 'inductively' means that we truly study it 'deductively'. That doesn't make anysense. Just because you believe the 'precept' is based upon deductive reasoning doesn't mean it's ok to study the Bible in such a way...

How about this, let the bible speak "first and foremost", and let our learning/understanding "follow" God's direction and teaching. ?

Amen. Some just like to call that 'inductive Bible study'.

 

[1Way]

The main thing is to not start with a false precept and then force it into God's word.

Better is to be ignorant of theology and then read God's word and then humbly conform your faith to God's word.

Both inductive and deductive reasoning is valid, as long as you use them properly, and I see no one suggesting to use them improperly here.

 

[1Way]

Z Man - You said

Even so, it doesn't mean that studying the Bible 'inductively' means that we truly study it 'deductively'.

Right, but the fact that the entire approach rests upon a sound deduction, proves that appropriate deduction is fine. To eliminate deduction would be to throw out the idea that you should use the inductive method because that methodology starts out with a clear presumption and expects to find validation through testing. That is the deductive method, so you are proving the validity of deduction by insisting upon induction being the "presumed" proper method.

Plainly, whoever did that website are great people, who are a little loose in their logic but probably very good with practical bible study methods. It's ok, no one is perfect, their main idea is pretty good, though is to some extent self refuting, but only because their support reasoning is a bit sloppy. Who cares, it's a decent idea, start with a blank slate, fil up your mind with the truth from God's word, i.e. keep out human errant ideas. :thumb:

 

[boogerhead]

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man - You said Right, but the fact that the entire approach rests upon a sound deduction, proves that appropriate deduction is fine. To eliminate deduction would be to throw out the idea that you should use the inductive method because that methodology starts out with a clear presumption and expects to find validation through testing. That is the deductive method, so you are proving the validity of deduction by insisting upon induction being the "presumed" proper method.

(correct me if i'm wrong zman) but i don't think he's saying that deductive reasoning is wrong...it's just dangerous...we're are so filled with what we were taught as kids that we often approach scripture deductively making it easy to see what we want to see in scripture...for example, if you were taught that we have free will, then you may say "i have free will, let's see where it says that in the Bible" and you can read verses here and there and those verses in combination with what you've already been taught and your desire to see that your theology is correct provide various opportunities to percieve those verses how you'd like to...to make them fit your theology...

start with a blank slate, fill up your mind with the truth from God's word, i.e. keep out human errant ideas. :thumb:

yep...there's a good idea :thumb:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

GIT,

Until you read that article, there is no point in debating with you. You don't know what you're talking about...

Z Man,

i'm having a hard time keeping myself from falling out of my chair from laughing at that article. seriously, it's got some HUGE errors that are just funny.

for example, here is a quote:

"Deductive Reasoning begins with a hypothesis (fancy word meaning to conclude by guessing)or an IDEA. "

Deductive reasoning does NOT begin with a hypothesis! it begins with a premise. there is a BIG difference. and also, a hypothesis is not a "word meaning to conclude by guessing". the hypothesis IS the guess itself. it's the CONCLUSION that means to conclude but even it doesn't conclude by guessing!

and this was only i think the third paragraph on the first page! the rest of it doesn't look much better.....

continuing on to where it tries to make deductive reasoning look bad.....

"Yet, if this was the ONLY question asked about "air", then one might be led to conclude that "air" is not a gas. "

here they try to attribute this to deductive reasoning when in reality it's a problem that comes from inductive reasoning! INDUCTIVE is the one that goes from the specific to the general, NOT deductive!

talk about cutting the legs out from under you :chuckle:

another quote from the 1st page

"But, this is absolutely NOT what this passage teaches. First, by using the passage this way is taking the phrase out of its context. Yet, if one has made up his mind that "money is evil", this might seem to be "proof" enough. This is the danger of deductive Bible Study. "

and again they make the mistake of attributing an inductive mistake to a deductive one. deductive reasoning does not include taking things out of context and making big general principles out of specific things! that's exactly what inductive does!

so their last sentence should read "This is the danger of inductive Bible Study.

moving on to more of this hilarious site

"The inductive method says that one will study, observe, and gather evidence (the specific part) on whatever topic and then draw conclusions(the general part) based on the observations."

hmmm.....that sounds like the scientific method to me :chuckle:

there is more i could post about this, but i think i've done enough to show their errors and persuade others from joining in their "inductive bible study" :chuckle:

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Z Man,

i'm having a hard time keeping myself from falling out of my chair from laughing at that article. seriously, it's got some HUGE errors that are just funny.

What's so funny?

there is more i could post about this, but i think i've done enough to show their errors and persuade others from joining in their "inductive bible study" :chuckle:

If you truly do not believe the Bible should be studied 'inductively', than I am afraid that you will find yourself in a minority of Christians who believe the same thing. In fact, the minority who believe this way aren't even labeled as 'Christians' anymore; nope, the world has come to call them 'cults'. You know them as Jehova Witnesses, Mormons, Branch Dividians, etc.......

:down:

 

[1Way]

Z Man - GIT - It's more about that website's errant overstatements. They have a wonderful core of truth that I think we all agree upon, but as GIT is alluding to, we should rightly understand and explain ourselves before a dying world, because if we present ourselves as incongruent or illogical, they will see it.

Come on you guys, credit where credit is due, both you two.

Z is right for saying hay, God's word should be first and foremost, even above our preconceptions, and GIT is right for seeing the sloppy support reasoning, which is to some extent, self refuting. It's not a perfect world, but we are saved by a wonderful Savior...Besides, I haven't had a really good chance to agree with Z Man in a long time, so, I'm trying to enjoy it for a while.

 

[1Way]

Lion - Thanks for your response, it was especially meaningful to hear that from you. Glad tidings and blessings.

I hope your back/neck situation is doing better...(?)

 

[1Way]

GIT - I agree with you about their incongruent and errent reasoning, but, check out what they say to actually do (practical application).

Take in the wider context,
understand the time sequencing,
drop your preconceptions
let God's word teach it's meaning
discover the thematic/ideas focus

That is the general ideas I got from that site (very quick scan). So certainly they spent very little time with the logic of it :dizzy:, I agree, very poorly done, but when their right, their right... Right?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

For Knight--In response to your requesting my definition of man's free will---

1. Everyone has, as a consequence of being made in God's image, the trait of personal, individual will, and without fail it is accompanied by motive. I guess, however, it maybe possible for someone who is certifiably insane to will apart from motive.

2. Everyone has the ability within themselves to will freely, BUT man's will is impotent. Therefore what man can, within himself, freely will does not necessarily translate into the freedom to perform what is willed. Consider--

A. Our will is always subject to our own mutability. What we will one moment may not endure into the next moment.
B. Our will may be countermanded by someone else's will. Only those who have not been married would dispute that point, and those who would vehemently deny such a possibility are not likely to ever find a wife. If they DO find one, it is likely that they will soon deservedly lose her.
C. As a consequence of our fall in Adam, the power of our will was marred; that aspect of God's image in us being, as all our traits, defaced from its former brightness.

Now I refer to some points made by Dr. Robert L. Reymond on page 354 of "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith"

Man's will cannot, of itself, 1. bring forth good fruit (Mt. 7:18)
2. hear God's word that they may have life (Jn.8:43) 3. be subject to the law of God (Ro.8:7) 4. discern truths of the Spirit of God (1Cor.2:14) 5. Confess from the heart Jesus as Lord (1Cor:12:3) 6. Control the tongue (James 3:8) 7. Come to Christ (Jn.6:44,45,65)

In addition, Reymond notes that things like weather, disease, and earlier parental influences can influence our will without our being aware of their effect upon us. Additionally, Reymond says that for us to know in any particular instance that our will is truly independent of extraneous causes, we would have to be omniscient, for only then could we know all possible extraneous influences hindering us from absolute independence.

This ends the material I gathered from Reymond. I have used it not because it is different from what I personally have believed, but because it was organized for easy use.

Finally, Both God and man have volition, and motivation is, without fail, involved in the volition of both. God's motivation is ALWAYS holy, just, and good. God will rightfully judge those whose motivations are improper even though they may have been willing the same event willed by God.

"You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good."

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man



What's so funny?

did you continue reading my post? calling a hypothesis a conclusion isn't funny to you?

If you truly do not believe the Bible should be studied 'inductively', than I am afraid that you will find yourself in a minority of Christians who believe the same thing. In fact, the minority who believe this way aren't even labeled as 'Christians' anymore; nope, the world has come to call them 'cults'. You know them as Jehova Witnesses, Mormons, Branch Dividians, etc.......

:down:

i didn't say we shouldn't study it inductively at all, i'm saying that we should use BOTH. i don't see good reason to just use one or the other as your website was suggesting.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man - GIT - It's more about that website's errant overstatements. They have a wonderful core of truth that I think we all agree upon, but as GIT is alluding to, we should rightly understand and explain ourselves before a dying world, because if we present ourselves as incongruent or illogical, they will see it.

Come on you guys, credit where credit is due, both you two.

Z is right for saying hay, God's word should be first and foremost, even above our preconceptions, and GIT is right for seeing the sloppy support reasoning, which is to some extent, self refuting. It's not a perfect world, but we are saved by a wonderful Savior...Besides, I haven't had a really good chance to agree with Z Man in a long time, so, I'm trying to enjoy it for a while.

fair enough. there was a little bit of stuff on the website that was good