Discussing/Debating beliefs

[Agent47]

As I've written elsewhere, beliefs are far from intellectual assent to ideas; we have invested so much time,energies,relationships and even money in them. This among others make us cling to them unreasonably, as well as violently defend them whenever threatened. I honestly would never face some characters here in person for fear of physical violence.

To the subject. I think to lower emotional heat during debates, it is important to distinguish between three aspects of beliefs (especially the one you are attacking['examining']);

1. What a theology adherent/sympathizer believes or says
2. What a particular theology luminaries believe or say
3. Logical implication of a theology/belief system.

There is a famous instance where Mohammed prescribed camel urine ad medicine. Very few Muslims doubt the authenticity of this account.

Let's break this down

1. Very few Muslims believe camel urine possesses any medicinal value
2. An Islam luminary, the very essence of Islam, Mohammed himself, believed it
3. Mohammed was not necessarily inspired, he is not infallible, and his prescriptions can be questioned or ignored.

A Muslim who abhors camel urine, who would never drink the same yet holds to Mohammed infallibility is a contradiction.

Strictly speaking, #1 is only possible if the subject adherent unambiguously states so.

#2 is not too hard for we have books and as long as we have citations, statements of luminaries can be to verified. The standard retort here is that these are quoted 'out of context'. Quite possible but perhaps this 'defence' ought to be accompanied by the 'right context'

#3 is no rocket science once #2 is accurately figured out. Anyone objecting conclusion arrived at ought to demonstrate at least reasonable alternatives.

Confusing or conflating these three is cause of avoidable conflict.

 

[Agent47]

It is equally important to define words and phrases.

Christian cults are notorious for redefining words in ways that only make sense to insiders while naturally meaning something else to outsiders.

Decree,predestinate,foreknowledge,sovereignty,glory ,ordain,rrender certain,effectual,permissive,decretive,allow,permit,prevenient,depravity,work....All these are highly loaded phrases that mean different things to different people

 

[MennoSota]

What does God say?
Sola Scriptura

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is equally important to define words and phrases.

Christian cults are notorious for redefining words in ways that only make sense to insiders while naturally meaning something else to outsiders.

Decree,predestinate,foreknowledge,sovereignty,glory ,ordain,render certain,effectual,permissive,decretive,allow,permit,prevenient,depravity,work....All these are highly loaded phrases that mean different things to different people

That is why it is necessary to examine the context of any portion of Scripture and to compare Scripture with Scripture. The truth of the Bible is not found in 'It is written' but in 'It is written again' (Matthew 4:5-7). Anyone can quote a Bible text- even the devil!

 

[Agent47]

That is why it is necessary to examine the context of any portion of Scripture and to compare Scripture with Scripture. The truth of the Bible is not found in 'It is written' but in 'It is written again' (Matthew 4:5-7). Anyone can quote a Bible text- even the devil!

Agreed lest we end up quoting scriptures like Satan

But it is increasingly clear that we approach scriptures through lenses of whatever theological worldview we don. Little wonder a Catholic will insist brothers and sisters of Jesus are anything but.

The definitions we give to scriptural terms largely rely on our worldviews as well

 

[Agent47]

What does God say?
Sola Scriptura

There are diverse beliefs. How we move from what God says to what we believe is what I'm talking about.

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[Agent47]

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

I would like an example of two logical but mutually exclusive positions based on the same presuppositions.

 

[JonC]

I would like an example of two logical but mutually exclusive positions based on the same presuppositions.

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.

 

[Agent47]

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.

No example forthcoming because none exists.

If your theory subscribes to a set of presuppositions, then anyone working with your presuppositions would arrive at the same conclusion as yourself

 

[JonC]

No example forthcoming because none exists.

If your theory subscribes to a set of presuppositions, then anyone working with your presuppositions would arrive at the same conclusion as yourself

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.

 

[Agent47]

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

And they need not be perfect to draw perfectly logical con conclusions.

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.

Two fallible beings. One theorizes based on presuppositions. The other seizes these presuppositions. Why would they arrive at different mutually contradictory conclusion?

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.

No example as expected.

Recall my esoteric quip?
Whatever presuppositions make any theory can be rationally and independently examined. If it is impossible to do this, then we should not even bother learning

 

[JonC]

Two fallible beings. One theorizes based on presuppositions. The other seizes these presuppositions. Why would they arrive at different mutually contradictory conclusion?

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.

 

[Agent47]

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.

Ok

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.

Presuppositions

1. God knows Adam will sin
2. God creates Adam
3. Adam sins

Conclusion
God wanted/willed Adam to sin

Is this a hypothetical example or is it what you really believe?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The biggest problems that I have in discussing doctrines/thology is that t other party does not really know/understnd thi own position from the scripture, nor what I really intend, and also have locked into seein scripture through their theological grid exclusively!

As when talking to Word offaith, they many times do not really know eha their teachers are stating, as they accept it as being of the Lord, ad do not know what scriptures really say on this!

 

[StefanM]

Ok

Presuppositions

1. God knows Adam will sin
2. God creates Adam
3. Adam sins

Conclusion
God wanted/willed Adam to sin

Is this a hypothetical example or is it what you really believe?

I'd modify that a bit.

Premises:
1) God perfectly knows the circumstances under which Adam would or would not sin.
2) God knows that in his planned creation, Adam will certainly sin.
3) God has the power to create an environment in which Adam will not sin.
4) God creates an environment in which he knows Adam will certainly sin.

Conclusion:
God wanted/willed Adam to sin.

This doesn't answer the question of why, though. Many of us do things we would not otherwise do because of another preferred outcome. For instance, employment. Many people do not like their jobs and would not do them except for the fact that they need a paycheck to meet their needs and desires.

Also, I don't enjoy disciplining my children, but I do so because of the great need for them to receive proper instruction.

 

[Agent47]

I'd modify that a bit.

Premises:
1) God perfectly knows the circumstances under which Adam would or would not sin.
2) God knows that in his planned creation, Adam will certainly sin.
3) God has the power to create an environment in which Adam will not sin.
4) God creates an environment in which he knows Adam will certainly sin.

Conclusion:
God wanted/willed Adam to sin.

This doesn't answer the question of why, though. Many of us do things we would not otherwise do because of another preferred outcome. For instance, employment. Many people do not like their jobs and would not do them except for the fact that they need a paycheck to meet their needs and desires.

Also, I don't enjoy disciplining my children, but I do so because of the great need for them to receive proper instruction.

Then saying God authored Sin shouldn't be a problem, right?

 

[StefanM]

Then saying God authored Sin shouldn't be a problem, right?

I think it's a pointless term from the WCF. I'd say that the Bible seems to indicate that God is the ultimate reason that sin exists.

 

[Agent47]

I think it's a pointless term from the WCF.

Why is it so? Countless believers have grappled with it. Confessionals attempt to phrase it.

I'd say that the Bible seems to indicate that God is the ultimate reason that sin exists.

How is this different from saying God authored Sin?

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

The problem arises at the use of the word "will". Depending on its context it can mean different things. In one case it means allow, in another it means decreed or intentionally set forth. In the context of allowing it does not mean a proactive participant it means an authority that may not necessarily want it but is willing to allow it. The other means that the activities were imposed on others or things.

Honestly I do not see that hashing out those things help anyone. It makes some feel smart to think they are able to understand that which was never really explained but it never adds to one's salvation or growth as a Christian.

God created us, mans rebelled and deserves death, God mediated and provide for our salvation. Beyond that it is above our pay grade and only endeavors to create strife. The problem is not just how we debate that creates this strife but what we debate over. In all of this debating and trying to prove one's positions we forget that God thoughts are not our thoughts and God's ways are not our ways. So we try to prove to others what we believe, belittle those with whom disagree with us, call names, taunt others who ignore our unwillingness to engage in their childishness etc. We become puffed up with pride and forget our place under God. Lord knows I have done this myself.

It does not promote peace, brotherly love, or godliness.