Featured Discussing/Debating beliefs

I believe that the most difficult aspect of examining belief (either one’s own or the views of another) is setting aside presuppositions. What we should deal with when we debate or discuss belief here are doctrines. These are objective (we can look at them from a historical point of view, examine via documentation what these truly teach, and even explore various interpretations of these teachings). But the way that we actually hold and interpret these doctrines are often subjective within our overall belief system. For example, two people may hold the exact doctrines differently (perhaps due to interpretation, application, or emphasis in one’s overall faith).

To illustrate my meaning, and since we are in the Cal/Arm section, consider the “scope of the Atonement”.

There are many non-Calvinists who define “Limited Atonement” as “Jesus died only for the elect” and therefore those who are not saved truly had no opportunity to be saved. If they had no opportunity to be saved, then the justness of God becomes questionable. In the end, the doctrine is rejected on a false premise because it has been placed within a context foreign to its audience (it would be like rejecting the idea of a pinch-hitter because the quarterback is not injured). What they miss is what is truly being said because they are unable to set aside their presuppositions, subjectivity, and supposed conclusions.

There are some Calvinists who hold the doctrine wrongly by simplifying the redeeming work of God to a system of debts and credits, looking upon God as judge/creditor, and shifting from God to man (although I don’t think they realize this) by imagining an offence to Holy God can be satisfied by the damnation of men.

There are others who exaggerate the doctrine by extending “atonement” to mean the work of the cross in toto (the same misunderstanding many non-Calvinists make when considering the doctrine) and believe that some people are without the means to be saved. And then this can lead to extreme positions such as the anti-missions movement.

But the fact is that the doctrine itself (objectively speaking) does not lead to any of these conclusions. As Edwards pointed out, Calvinism itself has never denied that Christ died for all giving all an opportunity to be saved.

Anyway, that’s just one example.

Another issue concerns people who take the views of others to a “logical conclusion”, never realizing that logic is a human endeavor and therefore not as objective as they would like to believe. Logic depends on human reasoning. And, logically , human reasoning must be as flawed as man. Two people may hold equally logical yet different positions. Some people are unable or unwilling to understand this. To them, there is only one logical conclusion and it is dependent on their subjective reasoning. Until a person is able to understand the legitimacy (by “legitimacy” I mean the logic and interpretation) of an opposing view, that person is not qualified to debate a position because they are unable. Their “arguments” are not applicable to the actual subject, and in truth are nothing but statements of ignorance and insult.

You would be surprised just how interesting theology can be when you are willing to take the time to understand the context and reasoning in which various doctrines are truly housed. Sometimes it is difficult because we naturally want to moralize or rationalize from our own perspective, and when we do this there are truly horrible teachings out there (e.g., Whitefield’s defense of slavery). But if we divorce “our” worldview from “theirs”, and distill the doctrine from our own presuppositions, then we can truly debate the topic.

Over the years I have come to appreciate several who are able to lend objectivity to their positions, and the positions of others. It is great to study alongside those who have different views and actually arrive at the component of disagreement. On this board, some simply are not willing to do this. Instead they merely tackle words and phrases of their “opposition” within their own presupposed context, and arriving at their own “logical conclusions” of the other’s belief they continue in ignorance to lean on their own understanding and denounce a fiction of what they perceive as true. We see this when people start imposing "logical conclusions" on beliefs they do not hold.

 

You have misunderstood (your "logic" is off here ).

I am not speaking of the process of logic as "1+1=2". I am speaking of the materials that we use to draw logical conclusions. In other words your math problem would look more like this: var(X) + var(Y) = Z. You insist that Z is exactly 2 because see logic but miss the variance. So, off the bat, you have confused "logic" as a process with "logical" as a conclusion by mistaking the process as dictating the end.

Many scientific "truths" of yesterday have not held true to this day. Typically it is our understanding, sometimes our ideologies, and often simply knowledge that is deemed to be the culprit. Rarely is it logic, except when the previous plays into the equation (a fallacy based on what had been previously accepted as true, for example).

Logic is based on human reasoning. We understand 1+1 to logically equal 2. That is it's logical conclusion. But logically, if human reasoning is less than perfect and something upon which we cannot rely, then logic itself is not absolute.

And, logically , if logic is a product of human understanding (or even involves human reasoning) then it cannot be applied to explaining with absolute certainty the mind and works of God because God is not man.

 

The only "theory" my statement insists upon is that men are not God and our reasoning is not perfect.

Logically, it is dependent upon you to prove human reasoning infallible before declaring the perfection of your logic (or human logic). This is one thing you presuppose. And then you need to prove the variables, which you also assume. And you need to work out and define all of those definitions you assume. And you need to demonstrate that an action attributed to God carries the same consequences as an action attributed to man, another point you assume.

Perhaps you simply need to start over and step back from all of your assumptions and presuppositions. Maybe you would be better served by objectively considering what others really believe, the reasoning behind their conclusions, the definitions used, and the context in which those beliefs are held. And then, identify where their belief really departs from your own and honestly discuss the issues.

 

Here is one example:

You and I have already agreed that (regardless of predestination or decree...based solely on pre-knowledge) God willingly took Adam and placed Adam in the Garden knowing for certain the outcome.

I believe that since God willingly took Adam and placed Adam in the Garden, knowing that Adam would fall and introduce sin into the world, that God was willing for Adam to sin.

You believe that since God willingly took Adam and placed Adam in the Garden, knowing that Adam would fall and introduce sin into the world, that God was not willing for Adam to sin otherwise God authored that sin.