ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by 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?

yes, that part of it was good although i didn't seem to get that it was the focus. their focus was that you do those things through inductive reasoning only and never by deductive. but i do agree that those are wonderful things to do (what you posted, not just inductive alone).

 

[superdink]

Just a couple verses to start up some discussion...

1 Samuel 2:6-7
The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up. The LORD sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts.

vs.

Ecclesiastes 9:11
The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

 

[superdink]

Sorry... I didn't realize when I posted that this had been going on for 2 years. = )

S'pose I'm a little late to start stirring things up eh.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by superdink

Sorry... I didn't realize when I posted that this had been going on for 2 years. = )

S'pose I'm a little late to start stirring things up eh.

Maybe a tad.

But if you have some input, relating to the existing ongoing debate on this thread, feel free to add it.

And welcome to TOL!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by superdink

Sorry... I didn't realize when I posted that this had been going on for 2 years. = )

S'pose I'm a little late to start stirring things up eh.

Hey Superdink... where ya been???

We have missed ya!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by 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."

Sorry... Rolf... but you're far too vague and obscure.

Please tell us.... Rolf, how do YOU define freewill?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by superdink

Just a couple verses to start up some discussion...

1 Samuel 2:6-7
The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up. The LORD sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts.

For the open theist: the verse is taken in context to mean just what it says. God is all powerful and has the ability to punish the wicked and bless the righteous.... 1Samuel 2:10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken in pieces; From heaven He will thunder against them. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth. “He will give strength to His king, And exalt the horn of His anointed.”

But for the closed theist: the verse rejects all context and is applied without condition for every circumstance for all of history.

NEXT VERSE

Ecclesiastes 9:11
The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

For the open theist: the verse is taken in context to mean just what it says.

But for the closed theist: the verse MUST mean something other than what it plainly states.

 

[Yorzhik]

Hope you don't mind Knight, but I want to try something...

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.

This isn't a definition of freewill. You can easily replace, if one didn't know the definition of "freewill", with anything the definition isn't known for, and it makes the same sense:

1. Everyone has, as a consequence of being made in God's image, the trait of personal, individual squigy, and without fail it is accompanied by motive.

Do you know what squigy is by your statement? Let's do the same thing with your next statement:

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

A. Our squigy is always subject to our own mutability. What we squigy one moment may not endure into the next moment.
B. Our squigy may be countermanded by someone else's squigy. 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 squigy was marred; that aspect of God's image in us being, as all our traits, defaced from its former brightness.

The definition of squigy cannot be determined by what you say. It should be the same as freewill if you had actually supplied a definition as you said you were doing.

Now, with C, could you please let us know what you mean when you say (from your original statement)

C. As a consequence of our fall in Adam, the power of our squigy was marred; that aspect of God's image in us being, as all our traits, defaced from its former brightness.

How does one have their freewill marred? You have it or you don't.

Man's will cannot, of itself, 1. bring forth good fruit

So what, even if it is true, does that diminish the presence of freewill? We wouldn't know… Rolf still hasn't defined what freewill is.

In addition, Reymond notes that things like weather, disease, and earlier parental influences can influence our squigy without our being aware of their effect upon us. Additionally, Reymond says that for us to know in any particular instance that our squigy 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.

Still… no definition.

Finally, Both God and man have volition, and motivation is, without fail, involved in the volition of both.

vo•li•tion (v -l sh n) n. The power or faculty of choosing; the will.

You cannot use a word to define itself, and you essentially do this immediately above.

So… for those of you who though Knight was just blowing Rolf off, my answer *could* have been:

Sorry... Rolf... but you're far too vague and obscure.

Please tell us.... Rolf, how do YOU define freewill?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yorzhik - POTD :first:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"squigy" :chuckle:

 

[Yorzhik]

It's really a secret word :shhhh:

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Knight

Hey Superdink... where ya been???

We have missed ya!

Oops, I saw that he had only 2 posts and thought he was a new member.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Poly

Oops, I saw that he had only 2 posts and thought he was a new member.

me too!

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by 1Way

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.

:chuckle:

Yeah.. it's like the "eye of the storm".. let's enjoy it while it last!

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i didn't say we shouldn't study [the Bible] 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.

So you mean to tell me it's ok for someone to come up with an hypothesis on a particular doctrine, and then interpret Scripture to support their 'fanatical' views?

If that's the case, you should never oppose different 'sects' or denominations of Christianity...

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

So you mean to tell me it's ok for someone to come up with an hypothesis on a particular doctrine, and then interpret Scripture to support their 'fanatical' views?

If that's the case, you should never oppose different 'sects' or denominations of Christianity...

no, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that deductive logic is just as good in regards to interpreting scripture as inductive is.

deductive logic is basically "since A is true, and B is true, we can logically conclude that C is definately true".

inductive reasoning is basically "since A is true, and B is true, D is probably true"

the only one that allows for true certainty is deductive logic. inductive is only a set of maybes.

inductive reasoning is NOT a valid form of logic by the way. that is why i tend to not rely on it very much. truth is certain with deductive, and not certain with inductive.

so you have drawn a straw man with your post here in saying that deductive logic would lead to such a thing. it wouldn't. if anything, it'd be inductive.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

no, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that deductive logic is just as good in regards to interpreting scripture as inductive is.

deductive logic is basically "since A is true, and B is true, we can logically conclude that C is definately true".

inductive reasoning is basically "since A is true, and B is true, D is probably true"

the only one that allows for true certainty is deductive logic. inductive is only a set of maybes.

inductive reasoning is NOT a valid form of logic by the way. that is why i tend to not rely on it very much. truth is certain with deductive, and not certain with inductive.

so you have drawn a straw man with your post here in saying that deductive logic would lead to such a thing. it wouldn't. if anything, it'd be inductive.

What in the world??? You have no freakin' clue what the definition for either are!!! No stinkin' clue!

To study the bible 'deductively' means this:

You believe A to be true. You then read the Bible to support your belief that A is true.


Inductive Bible study is this:

While reading the Bible, you learn that it speaks of A. You read some more, and find that the Bible indeed supports the belief of A. Thus, you then conclude that A must be true.


Deductive reasoning is not wrong, but using it to study the Bible most definitly is! It's bringing a 'made-up' doctrine or belief, based solely on one's 'logic', or 'observations in life', to the Bible to prove that it is true. For example, you believe in free will because it seems to be true in life. Then, you use Scripture to support that idea. That's deductive Bible study, and it's dangerous!

Inductive reasoning is not wrong either, and is the best way to study the Bible, period! That's not up for debate; that's the simple truth! It's reading the Bible with no 'presumptions' in your head. It's totally allowing the Scriptures to teach you what the truth really is, instead of just 'using' it to support your own made up beliefs. It's taking truth that is spoken of directly in the Bible and building a doctrine/theology upon those truths.

Deductive study makes a conclusion, THEN uses Scripture to provide evidence to support that conclusion, which was never based upon Scripture to begin with! Inductive study observes Scripture and gathers evidence on a specific topic to make a conclusion, based solely on the context of the particular topic being studied. This is a much stronger way to establish truth than any other method of Bible Study.

 

[1Way]

Z Man - You said

So you mean to tell me it's ok for someone to come up with an hypothesis on a particular doctrine, and then interpret Scripture to support their 'fanatical' views?

I agree that what you said is wrong. But, you can be deductive and be right, and you don't need to try to "support" the view. An overstatement in your statement is discovered in the fact that you can reasonably evaluate an idea with deductive reasoning as long as you are being objective, there is no necessity that one is trying to find "support" for the view. It is very reasonable to assume that you may go to God's word with an idea in mind, and objectively saying, maybe this idea is accurate, maybe it is not, so lets examine God's word and establish the truth of the matter, the idea may be true or false, depending upon the findings.

So I think that being

• objective verses subjective,
  and humble verses proud,
  HS led verses not,
  being sufficiently comprehensive verses being contextually thin,
  being consistent and not contradicting other bible teachings

are all more important than being inductive verses deductive. And every one of those approaches to bible study represent a deductive idea being applied to bible study! You start out with objectivity, and that is a good precept. You start out granting that it is better to be personally humble and not self prideful, and on and on.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

To study the bible 'deductively' means this:

You believe A to be true. You then read the Bible to support your belief that A is true.

since when?!

i have NEVER heard of such a thing in relation to deductive reasoning.

Inductive Bible study is this:

While reading the Bible, you learn that it speaks of A. You read some more, and find that the Bible indeed supports the belief of A. Thus, you then conclude that A must be true.

and where did you pull this from?!

you said yourself earlier than inductive was going from the specific TO the general. in your statement here, NO general statement is made. NONE! in fact, your statement makes no sense! if it "speaks of A" then of COURSE it's going to support it! that's like saying that you've recently heard of a "blue sky" and you read some books that say indeed the sky really is blue. DUH!

Deductive reasoning is not wrong, but using it to study the Bible most definitly is!

using YOUR defintion of deductive reasoning, I AGREE!

It's bringing a 'made-up' doctrine or belief, based solely on one's 'logic', or 'observations in life', to the Bible to prove that it is true.

that is NOT deductive reasoning. not in the least.

For example, you believe in free will because it seems to be true in life.

it takes free will to believe in it! the only alternative is that i was predestined to believe in free will! surely you don't believe that do you? if so, too bad for you. if i'm predestined to believe in it then what can you do? NOTHING, save what you also were predestined to do.

Then, you use Scripture to support that idea

the bible is not a encyclopedia. it does not contain abstract knowledge of facts about things that really don't matter. there is no page that simply says "man has free will". but must something be stated in scripture to be true? surely not! please tell me you believe that truth exists outside of scripture and not just inside of it alone.

Inductive reasoning is not wrong either, and is the best way to study the Bible, period!

:chuckle:

Deductive study makes a conclusion, THEN uses Scripture to provide evidence to support that conclusion

nonsense. it is a form of reasoning used to determine what is true within scripture. already believing in the idea of something and then finding biblical support for it is called biasing and using the bible for an agenda. either the bible will truly support the idea or it wont. it doesn't matter what you want it to say.

Inductive study observes Scripture and gathers evidence on a specific topic to make a conclusion, based solely on the context of the particular topic being studied. This is a much stronger way to establish truth than any other method of Bible Study.

call it what you like, i still don't believe it is inductive reasoning.

GIT

 

[Rolf Ernst]

knight--Iwent into far greater detail concerning free will than you did, yet you say I did not define it. I not only defined it as an attribute which men have as a consequence of being made in God's image, the power to will with motive, but I spoke of its qualities. How, sir, is that vague?

One thing I did not mention yesterday is the fact that the unregenerate man's "free" will is not really free in the sense that it is in bondage to sin, and taken captive by Satan "at his will."

Still, that does not mean that man is without will--only that an element of his will is an inability due to his bondage to sin.

If you want an example of vagueness, revisit your response to one of my challenges to you last week. I kindly said nothing to you about your response being evasive and indistinct, but if you want to discuss clarity of meaning of your post versus mine on man's will, I would be glad to do so. I will look the post and page numbers up.