ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Rolf Ernst]

add yasaf--your post #1038: Both Jesus and the apostles used proof texts, so there is no shame on me for doing so also. Marshalling a host of proof texts which teach the same thing even thouigh the context may be different is one of the surest ways to PROVE a point. If the same truth is taught even in the course of changes in context, it is a lock that the truth is one that is inseperable from the word itself.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Sola Scriptura, while not in the Bible in those precise words is, nevertheless, forcefully taught in the closing verses of the Bible.
Those who add anything to it will have added to them the plagues written in the Bible, and those who take anything out of it will be taken out of the book of life. Believe me, there could not be a stronger Sola Scriptura message.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--that is a good website tip. thanks.

my point was nothing more than the similarity between OVers hermeneutical stytle and the socinians. I was careful make clear that I wasn't accusing anyone of the Socinian heresies, but merely showing the dangers of elevating human logic and reasoning powers to the point that they were considered valuable in determining the meaning of scripture texts.

Yes, Clete. I reject human reasoning as a source of information in matters spiritual. The Bible says that IT is profitable, sufficient to
thoroughly furnish for EVERY good work. What does that leave out?
I believe the Bible touches every base we need in our earthly sojourn, and if human reason would add to or alter anything in scripture, it would be erroneous; hence, a hindrance rather than a help--unless, of course, a person is reasoning on the basis of scripture and rejecting any conclusion based upon that sanctified reasoning that is NOT ALSO VERIFIABLE BY SCRIPTURE. In other words, I believe our powers of reason may be profitable for guidance in the discovery of various texts which fit together for the systematizing of scripture truth IF, after reasoning has done its work, we find confirmation of it in texts of scripture.

Sola Scriptura, while not in the Bible in those precise words is, nevertheless, forcefully taught in the closing verses of the Bible.
Those who add anything to it will have added to them the plagues written in the Bible, and those who take anything out of it will be taken out of the book of life. Believe me, there could not be a stronger Sola Scriptura message.

Amen. :thumb:

God cannot be unjust for ordaining people to do things, then hold them accountable, for the Scriptures teach us of a God who does that very thing.

 

[Clete]

Rolf,

I somehow missed your post yesterday, sorry about that.

You are missing my point I think with regards to the necessity of having both Scripture and logic.

I'm saying little more than one must be reasonable in how they interpret the Scripture.

Z Man's last post is a perfect example of what happens when you throw away logic and just blindly accept anything just because you can find something in the Bible that seems to support it. If that were proper then you could make a case for almost anything from the Bible. Racism, universalism, astrology, you name it and I guarantee you that someone can find something in the Bible that says its okay. Of course we all know and agree that the Bible does not say any such thing but we know this because of reason!

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

How can this be done without a logical analysis of the texts?
How can you even read the text without logic? Do you not proceed left to right top to bottom when you read or do you jump around like a frightened rabbit reading half sentences at a time?
How can you make an argument against this point without using logic to formulate your argument?

Do you see my point?

Sound reason is indispensable in any search for truth including Biblical truth. Truth cannot even be defined without it!

Thus, regardless of how many times Z Man wishes to repeat himself and no matter how many proof texts you or he find, his statement CANNOT be true. You do not need a PhD in theology to know this; all you need is the definition of the word “justice” and the willingness to think with objective clarity.

To command an act that you intend to punish later on is unjust by definition. Therefore, if God does or has, in fact, done this then He is unjust. However, we know that God is not unjust (because of the Scripture) and so we therefore know that God did not command acts that he later punished. We further know that any passage that seems to us to be saying such a thing is being misunderstood.

It is so simple that any third grader (even one in public school) would immediately understand it! It is literally elementary. To cling to any other position requires an arbitrary abandonment of reason in favor of one's own theology. If your theology cannot stand up to sound reason then it is false, period.

By the way, this does not mean that there is no mystery to the Christian faith. I am not suggesting that if we cannot understand it then it isn't true, that would be a gross overstatement. There are, I'm sure, hundreds of thousands of details about God that I will not fully understand after a million years in His presence. But I can know that He is not unjust or arbitrary or contradictory in any way because He Himself has told us so. You must agree that we can know at least as much as He has told us about Himself and that if we come across something that seems to be in conflict with that revelation then we can know that either it is false or we are misunderstanding it, right?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--you say that to command an act that you intend to punish later on is, by definition, unjust.

What about those instances wherein God, with motives holy, just, and good, uses instruments to carry out His just purpose but THEIR motives in what they do are wicked?

To Me, there is a difference in an act and the motives for it. Consider the crucifixtion of Christ, and Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery. In both instances we have the same act, but the two parties involved have different motives. Was God as guilty of the enslavement of Joseph as his brothers were because God's motive was to "save many alive?" Or were Joseph's brothers as blameless in their actions as God was because God intended good in it?

By the way--I appreciate your faith in Christ. I was thinking last night that it is probably the reason you have not fallen into the same heresies the Socinians fell into whose hermeneutical style was quite similar. The Holy Spirit won't LET you go there.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--another example to consider is in the tenth chapter of Isaiah. It is clear that God's motive was just in bringing the king of Assyria against His disobedient people, and God was also just for bringing upon the king of Assyria the judgement He warned him of because his motive as he took part in the that judgement was not right.

As for jumping around like a scared rabbit--I used to hunt rabbits as a youth, and my only knowledge of what that fear may be like is the way they ran so fast to get away. I don't think I have need to identify with that. You wouldn't declare open season on me--would you? Have a gooood weekend.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--you say that to command an act that you intend to punish later on is, by definition, unjust.

What about those instances wherein God, with motives holy, just, and good, uses instruments to carry out His just purpose but THEIR motives in what they do are wicked?

To Me, there is a difference in an act and the motives for it. Consider the crucifixtion of Christ, and Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery. In both instances we have the same act, but the two parties involved have different motives. Was God as guilty of the enslavement of Joseph as his brothers were because God's motive was to "save many alive?" Or were Joseph's brothers as blameless in their actions as God was because God intended good in it?

I'm not sure if I understand the parallel that you are drawing but it doesn't matter.
In the case of Christ's dying on the cross, one must keep in mind that Jesus went to the cross of His own free will.

John 10: 17"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

And in the case of Joseph, there is no necessity to believe that God orchestrated his kidnapping and attempted murder, his brothers did that all on their own. God, however, is not a stone idol; He reacted to their evil and worked it out so that good came of it.

another example to consider is in the tenth chapter of Isaiah. It is clear that God's motive was just in bringing the king of Assyria against His disobedient people, and God was also just for bringing upon the king of Assyria the judgment He warned him of because his motive as he took part in the that judgment was not right.

I don’t think this is as good an example as you think. Even taking you presentation of this at its face value, you have God punishing Israel for one thing which you admit was just and we have God punishing the Assyrian king not for having done to Israel what God had commanded but because his motives were wrong.

These examples serve only to demonstrate my point. It doesn’t matter how many of these you want to come at me with. It doesn’t matter if I am able to interpret them properly or not either. No matter what, we can absolutely know that God is not capable of doing anything that is unjust and so if there is anything that suggests that He has done something that would be unjust then we know that there is something that we are missing or that there is something that we are reading into the text. It’s as simple as that.

By the way--I appreciate your faith in Christ. I was thinking last night that it is probably the reason you have not fallen into the same heresies the Socinians fell into whose hermeneutical style was quite similar. The Holy Spirit won't LET you go there.

Well, there are plenty of genuine Christians that fall into grievous error, if that were not so the Freak smilie :freak: would look a lot different. So I don’t think that I agree with the part about the Holy Spirit not letting me but otherwise I appreciate your comment here. At first I thought you were making more of a comparison than that.
I would submit that the Socinians didn’t fall into their multiplied errors because of logic but in spite of it. They may have given lip service to logic and bragged about how intellectual and reasonable they were, but like I'm very fond of reminding people, saying it doesn't make it so.
Well, I had more to say on that but I’m smooth out of time for now! Maybe more later!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[add yasaf]

happy

happy

Role Ernst quote - add yasaf--your post #1038: Both Jesus and the apostles used proof texts, so there is no shame on me for doing so also. Marshalling a host of proof texts which teach the same thing even thouigh the context may be different is one of the surest ways to PROVE a point. If the same truth is taught even in the course of changes in context, it is a lock that the truth is one that is inseperable from the word itself.





Jesus and the apostles used verses differently each time. See Silva's chapter - http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/search?isrc=b-compare-srchbox&t=ISBN&q=0801025702

Their usage of Scripture was the same as what the broader Jewish scholarly audience was using at that time, and was effective for that time.

In some other cases, Jesus is quoting from one verse, but it is clear when you read the context that he understood the context perfectly.
That is why I explained the meaning of Matthew 13 more clearly to you, because though you cited it, it really had nothing to do with your argument.

It is like quoting from Job's speeches and conclude that it is recommending that we scrape our boils and question God's wisdom. It is like trying to get an understanding of physics on a molecular level from a Martha Stewart cookbook.

Jesus obviously had the wisdom requisite to be a good Biblical scholar, and the apostles walked with Jesus, and so learned from the best. So again I plead with you, CONTEXT!

If you would like me to continue to show you why those verses do not support your position I would be happy to.

 

[Clete]

Where'd everybody go?

Where'd everybody go?

Hey add,

I think we might be the only one's left standing.

It's hard to say for sure though. Sometimes Rolf is sort of slow to respond. He must think that there is something more important in life than debating Calvinism. Imagine that!

 

[Z Man]

Clete,

How can a debate go on when a person does not hold the Scriptures as the final authority?

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm still here, but I don't think I'm talking with anyone but Hilston, and he hasn't responded yet.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Clete,

How can a debate go on when a person does not hold the Scriptures as the final authority?

I think the Scriptures are the final authority as long as they are interpreted within the bounds of sound reason. If sound reason is rejected then you can hold to practically any position you want and support that position with Scripture.

Saying that God is just even though He does things that are unjust is a really good example of the later.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[add yasaf]

baby steps

baby steps

All,


I think the church should make it more clear, and say, that Scripture has final authority in CONTEXT!! There seems to be a glut of people on here who refuse to read Scripture in context.

Now, even after that is done, there will be disagreement for sure, but at least the CONTEXT step would be taken, which is very rare here.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

I'm still here, but I don't think I'm talking with anyone but Hilston, and he hasn't responded yet.

You gotta be patient with Hilston. It takes a while to write those big old long posts of his!

Anyway, I was only kidding around about every body being gone. It was just my way of bumping the thread.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

Quite. I understand Hilston takes a while to respond, although I think he responds faster than I do, frequently. I'll just be patient.

I'm actually glad that this conversation has continued. I've had this discussion with CV'ers face to face, and it quickly turns into an angry argument. But while in this thread, many points are actually made on both sides.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

add yasaf--you criticise my use of Mt. 13:10-13, saying I took it out of context. You can't say that unless you know two things: first, what point I was making by using that text, and second, what in that text shows that it does not make that point. Can you answer both of those points? Do you recall what point is being disputed between us?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
I'm actually glad that this conversation has continued. I've had this discussion with CV'ers face to face, and it quickly turns into an angry argument. But while in this thread, many points are actually made on both sides.

Agreed. I've had similar experiences myself. Even here, people, myself included, get a little hot under the collar :madmad:. But on the whole people are able to calm down enough to continue without holding grudges.
This I think is part of the genius behind the way Knight runs this site. People are encouraged to get emotional about the things they believe in but are expected to remain respectful enough for profitable discussion to be a possibility.
Perhaps it's a good thing that this thread fizzled out for a few days. I know I was letting myself get a little too frazzled by it and had said some things I shouldn't have (sorry Z Man!).
Anyway, perhaps we'll get things rolling again or perhaps we won't but either way, it's been among the best threads I've been involved with since I've been posting here.

God Bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--in post #1052, you say Scriptures should be the final authority as long as they are interpreted within the bounds of sound reason. Would you like to amend the statement? It sounds like you are saying that man's reason determines what interpretations of Scripture are acceptable. Doesn't that limit God's word to stating nothing more than what conforms to the understanding of His creature? Does man's reason REALLY define the limits of proper Bible interpretation? Does that viewpoint leave any room for the idea that God's thoughts and ways are as high above ours as the heaven is above the earth? Or that His judgements are far above out of our sight? Think about it for awhile. What do you REALLY think?

P.S.--I saw a show on pbs's NOVA while ago that showed how a music specialist, by means of computerized discharge of fireworks charges, was able to precisely choreograph the music with the fireworks display. The selection of music was wonderful to hear, and the choreography was faultless. Watch for it this weekend.
PBS or C-span may have such a display. PBS, most likely because they were showing all about it.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I think the Scriptures are the final authority as long as they are interpreted within the bounds of sound reason. If sound reason is rejected then you can hold to practically any position you want and support that position with Scripture.

You can only support your position as long as it is based on Scripture, not 'sound reason'! Of course we should use 'sound reason' to interpret the Scriptures, but sometimes the Word of God reveals things to us that we just can't comprehend, and we are suppose to just trust God at His Word and accept them as the final authority on anything. If what is said in Scripture seems like a 'hard pill' to swallow, you don't reject it and say it doesn't match with 'sound reason', then try to interpret that passage to make it fit 'your view'. That's wrong, and that's how a person can make the Scriptures say what they want it to.

When the Scriptures tell us that God commanded David to take the census, and then punished him because of his sin in taking the census, there is only one conclusion a person can come to in that situation;

It's obvious that God ordains us to do things, then hold us accountable. And yet, in all of this, God is not unjust. For far be it that the Scriptures would teach such a thing! Thus, since they do tell us He ordains and holds accountable, and that they do not teach us that He is an 'unjust' God, we must conclude that God cannot be unjust for ordaining and holding accountable at the same time.

Perhaps it's a good thing that this thread fizzled out for a few days. I know I was letting myself get a little too frazzled by it and had said some things I shouldn't have (sorry Z Man!).

No problem. :thumb:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--in post #1052, you say Scriptures should be the final authority as long as they are interpreted within the bounds of sound reason. Would you like to amend the statement? It sounds like you are saying that man's reason determines what interpretations of Scripture are acceptable. Doesn't that limit God's word to stating nothing more than what conforms to the understanding of His creature? Does man's reason REALLY define the limits of proper Bible interpretation? Does that viewpoint leave any room for the idea that God's thoughts and ways are as high above ours as the heaven is above the earth? Or that His judgments are far above out of our sight? Think about it for awhile. What do you REALLY think?

I highlighted where you've missed my point. You keep referring to "man's" reason. I am talking simply about sound reason. I couldn't care less about "man's" reason, I don't even know what that is!
God says "Come let us reason together." Thus, sound reason is not foreign to God nor does it "limit" Him, except to say that God is confined within the bounds of reality. And it is this sort of reason to which I refer, not some subjective thing you call "man's" reason.
I responded to this same idea several posts ago and I think it will be profitable to repost it here...

In response to Z Man I said...

There is one point that you have made or inferred a number of times that I haven't yet addressed and this as good a time to do it as any.
Logic is not man made. There are different forms that logic sometimes takes but these forms of logic are not made, they are discovered. Flipper brought up a form of logic that I hadn't heard of before that has to do with computers and the way they process information. Even this form of logic was not crafted by men, but it flows from the nature of the computer.

Flipper said...

I might also add that his side of the argument effectively short circuits Boolean logic, which means that in Zarcharias' world, none of the computers work.

First it is interesting to note he attempts to knock a whole in either/or logic by effectively telling us that for computers it's either Boolean logic or nothing at all. The very same trap you fell into with regards to wanting both predestination and freewill. But that's not the point I want to make. The point I do want to make is that this Boolean logic is not man made. The computer is man made and it is made in a certain way, which causes, by nature of the way a computer works, Boolean logic to have certain rules.
In other words the rules of logic are not arbitrary. They are an extension of reality. If something is illogical it doesn’t have anything to do with the way I feel about it or what I think. Something is either logical or it isn’t, period. Saying that something is logical is just another way of saying that it is true or correct not that it feels good or that I agree with it. Your emotions and intellectual acknowledgment of something is not a factor in how true or how logical it is.
This is the point that I established beyond dispute in post 857.

Does that help you accept my notion that BOTH Scripture and sound reason are requisite to a proper theology?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Z Man, I'm short on time right now so I'll respond to your post later. And Rolf, do you have any response to post 1047?