The "I" problem

[Luke2427]

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Romans 15:2 Let every one of us please [his] neighbour for [his] good to edification.

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

And possibly the three verses that apply most to Baptist Board:
Proverbs 26:4-5
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject

What are these verses saying to us?

What were they saying to the ones to whom they were writtne? How do they fit into their immediate context, the context of the book in which they were written and the context of the whole of Scripture.

It is too easy just to copy and paste verses without ANY exegesis whatsoever.

ANYBODY can do that- but one who does it should not think that he has made a point.

The Bible is a MASSIVE book and every passage of Scripture posted deserves context for that reason.

 

[Iconoclast]

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Romans 15:2 Let every one of us please [his] neighbour for [his] good to edification.

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

And possibly the three verses that apply most to Baptist Board:
Proverbs 26:4-5
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject

These verses are helpful to put a fence or a hedge around this issue,along with a few others:
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

All the verses here come into play....as well as the instruction to -watch out for those-
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith,
longsuffering, charity, patience,


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

 

[Don]

These verses are helpful to put a fence or a hedge around this issue,along with a few others:
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

All the verses here come into play....as well as the instruction to -watch out for those-
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith,
longsuffering, charity, patience,


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Thank you for making the point much better than I did.

 

[Benjamin]

Yes, but the deficiency in this age is not softness in Chritendom. It is firmness that is severely lacking.

This is not the age of Jonathan Edwards.

It is the age of Joel Osteen.

It also takes a strong man to be a gentleman.

I’ll admit that sometimes I’m pretty quick to go straight for the jugular vein in a debate, but when I don’t…

Luke,



…don’t ever mistake my silence for ignorance,

my calmness for acceptance or


my kindness for weakness.

K?

 

[Arbo]

Some recipes call for powdered sugar. Others call for cayenne pepper.

But when you substitute powdered sugar for cayenne pepper when the recipe calls for cayenne pepper you make something NOBODY wants.

The deficiency in this age and religious culture is spice-not sugar.

If a chef cannot tell if his food is too hot or too bitter, what does that say about his palate? If he ignores the complaints of his diners and continues to produce dishes that no one wants, what does that say about his attitude as a chef?

 

[Skandelon]

Self-righteousness is better identified by the act of people going around telling other people how bad they are, is it not??

Yes. And when someone is unnecessarily rude to another making it appear he thinks he is better than they are. People tend to appear more rude, abrupt and harsh in an online forum thus giving a greater impression of self-righteousness.

You've accused me of thinking I'm better than others (sometimes due to my moderator label) and other times because I sound assured of myself or confident in my reply. I know that I can come across that way to others if I'm not careful, but I'm not sure you know that you come across that way to people on both sides of this debate because of the harshness of your replies...i.e. 'study or shut up' etc

 

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for making the point much better than I did.

Don you made a clear post, and I like what arbo posted:

If a chef cannot tell if his food is too hot or too bitter, what does that say about his palate? If he ignores the complaints of his diners and continues to produce dishes that no one wants, what does that say about his attitude as a chef?

I think there is wisdom here. For the most part I agree with much of what Luke 2427 says......but it seems like this kind of forum does not work to his advantage in how he expresses these things.

The level of hostility does not lend itself to clear expression sometimes:wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't understand.

Well when the DI (Drill Instructor) takes his index finger & sticks it in someones (eye) & says "thats the only eye around here" (that happens generally on the bus, then he has painfully just taught you. TEAM!

As my DI stated, "from now on you are no longer, insert name. You are now ' Recruit-and-your -last name,'UNDERSTAND"

Dont even think of elevating the individual....Why would you elevate yourself above your unit?

 

[MB]

We've all got it. "I" know "I" do.

But some people DON'T know they have an "I" problem.

Some people don't realize that they are constantly trying to paint themselves as super-spiritual people.

"I"M the kind of person that would give the shirt off his back..."

"I just hate to see Christians fussing and fighting..." (Implying that he does not condescend to this vile behavior. He has risen above it, and wishes that we poor immature people could rise to his level of spirituality)

But usually these are people who are as flawed in these very areas as the ones they lecture are.

But what makes these lecturers worse off than the people they criticize is that they really don't see themselves as flawed in that particular area.

I cannot recount the many times someone has attacked me for attacking someone. HELLO??? Do you not see a bit of inconsistency there??

I am amazed at the many times I have been called names while being lectured for calling people names!!!

It is HILARIOUS!

One guy goes around TROLLING for TROLLERS!

It is amazing how oblivious some people are to their own self-righteousness!

But it is also amazing how shallow some people are in swallowing their self-righteous lectures hook, line and sinker. With all kinds of smiley-face-thumbs-up icons.

This is because, in my opinion, they are as guilty of this self-aggrandizing, self-exalting mindset themselves.

I am guilty of this very thing. Perhaps even in this very POST I am doing the very thing that I criticize. But it is true nonetheless.

Paul said, "OH WRETCHED MAN THAT I AM!"

That spirit will take a lot of the wind from self-exalting sails.

Wow Luke! We all know we aren't perfect but, do you have to be so blunt and demonstrative about it. All this said with out using that dreaded one letter word we all use to refer to our selves.
MB:laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I don't understand.

I was a Marine...In Boot-camp, Marines are not allowed to speak in the first- or second persons EVER.

They do not say "I".
Similarly, they do not ever say: "YOU"

When refering to themselves a recruit says:

"This recruit has not recieved his ammunition isuue yet, sir...or when referring to another he might say..

"Sir, the Drill Instructor told This recruit to give him 30 push-ups, sir"

If you are ever caught using the word "I" you will start doing MANY push-ups and as you go down and up, you will say

"I"
"Me"
"My"
"Mine"
....as you go up and down, up and down

Nothing is ever "Mine"...it's "This recruit's"....and so on.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

One area in which I would disagree with some posters...is that it is disingenuous to always say things like "I think you are mistaken..." or "I think" you are wrong here

Sometimes, I don't "THINK" a poster is wrong...I "KNOW" they are wrong.

It is a rare moment that I will simply say, "NO YOU ARE WRONG"...but to constantly use phraseology like "I think"...relativises truth, and that is equally as dangerous (if not more so) than simply laying down the hammer when someone speaks falsely.
Truth is not relative, and when someone's post is Biblically provably demonstrably false, it is not helpfull to say "I respectfully disagree"...

Not that we need to start saying "You're wrong" every time we disagree with one another...but you do no favors to the Scriptures nor sound doctrine nor the Great truths of Christianity when sheer heresy is spoken of with "I think that I respectfully disagree"...There are some pure wolves in our congregations, they are not to have their views respected, but SHUT DOWN.

In part, this is in response to QF's posts...I would hope sir, that if I contended that 2+2=5...you would NOT tell me that you "think" I was wrong, but rather that you would put to death any such falsehoods with extreme predjudice....feel free to use a red pen when my sums are incorrect

 

[quantumfaith]

One area in which I would disagree with some posters...is that it is disingenuous to always say things like "I think you are mistaken..." or "I think" you are wrong here

Sometimes, I don't "THINK" a poster is wrong...I "KNOW" they are wrong.

It is a rare moment that I will simply say, "NO YOU ARE WRONG"...but to constantly use phraseology like "I think"...relativises truth, and that is equally as dangerous (if not more so) than simply laying down the hammer when someone speaks falsely.
Truth is not relative, and when someone's post is Biblically provably demonstrably false, it is not helpfull to say "I respectfully disagree"...

Not that we need to start saying "You're wrong" every time we disagree with one another...but you do no favors to the Scriptures nor sound doctrine nor the Great truths of Christianity when sheer heresy is spoken of with "I think that I respectfully disagree"...There are some pure wolves in our congregations, they are not to have their views respected, but SHUT DOWN.

In part, this is in response to QF's posts...I would hope sir, that if I contended that 2+2=5...you would NOT tell me that you "think" I was wrong, but rather that you would put to death any such falsehoods with extreme predjudice....feel free to use a red pen when my sums are incorrect

The world of mathematics and the world of "faith" are differing domains. I do personally agree that are issues in "faith" that one must adhere to, but in an intellectual sense, one of another faith could simply deny "your" truth in favor of their own "truth". You cannot, "unfortunately" quantify the christian faith, you can argue logic and the like, but it will always come back to premises. Those premises, become and argument of reductio ad infinitum, where in the end both sides go to the corner declaring victory. If you hear me arguing against "faith" or biblical truth...then you hear wrongly.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The world of mathematics and the world of "faith" are differing domains. I do personally agree that are issues in "faith" that one must adhere to, but in an intellectual sense, one of another faith could simply deny "your" truth in favor of their own "truth".

"I THINK" :laugh: you are mistaken here... They are not entirely different. But one CANNOT make positive truth-claims and then speak in terms of "MY" truth or "their" truth....There is no such thing. I think your response demonstrates the problem I have with "I think" talk sometimes. If I have "my" truth and they have "their" truth....Than, as I said, that relativises truth. Truth is not relative. Period. The possibilities are these:
1.) I am wrong and he is right
2.) He is wrong and I am right
3.) Neither of us are correct

There is no option #4 that:
Both of us have a "TRUTH" which is uniquely our own...and honestly, if you think so, than you are "WRONG" and I don't simply "think" that you are, I KNOW it.

You cannot, "unfortunately" quantify the christian faith,

I believe that you can actually, at least to extent that you can demonstrate that (with probability) no alternative world-view is even close to it's probabilistic truth compared to any other world-view. "Faith" is not something we posses in lieu of reason or facts or logic. If you were to argue an alternative explanation for reality, I believe that you would be forced to pay some EXTREMELY high price merely to posses it.
Such as quantifying "truth" itself
Quantifying "knowledge" itself:
(given a sheer materialist world-view these are hard to quantify)...C.S. Lewis explains that with cave-men and how they might evolve to run-away from saber-tooth tigers.

you can argue logic and the like, but it will always come back to premises. Those premises, become and argument of reductio ad infinitum,

I don't know what an argument of "reductio ad infinitum" is...I suspect, that there is no such thing. If you mean to suggest that one must posit an infinite number of explanations sufficient to cover every possible "why" question when the answer posed is reasonable, has explanatory power, is consistent and generates the maximal number of answers for the least amount of assumptions...than I deny such a thing as an "argument ad infinitum"...One is NOT required to "explain" an "explanation"....One is required to pose on AN explanation. If said explanation satisfies all of those conditions, than it would follow with extreme probability that that is the "best" explanation, and that to believe another requires one to pay an incredibly intellectually high price. When a superior explanation is presented one is merely obtuse if they refuse to accept it unless they can provide a better one. One would be advised to accept the BEST explanation until such time as it is demonstrated that that explanation is insufficient or a better one is available. As it stands, I believe with confidence that the Judeo-Christian explanation for reality itself is by FAR the "BEST" possible explanation for all of what we percieve to be reality as we know it.

where in the end both sides go to the corner declaring victory.

They may "declare" as they wish...and I might confidently say "you ARE wrong"...and not "I THINK you are wrong".

If you hear me arguing against "faith" or biblical truth...then you hear wrongly.

I do not....It is the judgement of this court that QF is, in fact, saved. And that it follows that he maintains the status of a brother in Christ and that wonderful fellowship will be enjoyed with him eternally when our Lord and Saviour explains to us that we both had no stinkin' clue what we were talking about. :wavey: :godisgood:

 

[Benjamin]

On a side note: I know the answer to 6÷2(1+2) is 1 and those who say it is 9 are wrong!

:laugh:

 

[Salty]

On a side note: I know the answer to 6÷2(1+2) is 1 and those who say it is 9 are wrong!

:laugh:

Only to 6 point Calvinists:smilewinkgrin:

 

[quantumfaith]

On a side note: I know the answer to 6÷2(1+2) is 1 and those who say it is 9 are wrong!

:laugh:

And why is that....because we have defined it as such.

 

[quantumfaith]

"I THINK" :laugh: you are mistaken here... They are not entirely different. But one CANNOT make positive truth-claims and then speak in terms of "MY" truth or "their" truth....There is no such thing. I think your response demonstrates the problem I have with "I think" talk sometimes. If I have "my" truth and they have "their" truth....Than, as I said, that relativises truth. Truth is not relative. Period. The possibilities are these:
1.) I am wrong and he is right
2.) He is wrong and I am right
3.) Neither of us are correct

There is no option #4 that:
Both of us have a "TRUTH" which is uniquely our own...and honestly, if you think so, than you are "WRONG" and I don't simply "think" that you are, I KNOW it.


I believe that you can actually, at least to extent that you can demonstrate that (with probability) no alternative world-view is even close to it's probabilistic truth compared to any other world-view. "Faith" is not something we posses in lieu of reason or facts or logic. If you were to argue an alternative explanation for reality, I believe that you would be forced to pay some EXTREMELY high price merely to posses it.
Such as quantifying "truth" itself
Quantifying "knowledge" itself:
(given a sheer materialist world-view these are hard to quantify)...C.S. Lewis explains that with cave-men and how they might evolve to run-away from saber-tooth tigers.

I don't know what an argument of "reductio ad infinitum" is...I suspect, that there is no such thing. If you mean to suggest that one must posit an infinite number of explanations sufficient to cover every possible "why" question when the answer posed is reasonable, has explanatory power, is consistent and generates the maximal number of answers for the least amount of assumptions...than I deny such a thing as an "argument ad infinitum"...One is NOT required to "explain" an "explanation"....One is required to pose on AN explanation. If said explanation satisfies all of those conditions, than it would follow with extreme probability that that is the "best" explanation, and that to believe another requires one to pay an incredibly intellectually high price. When a superior explanation is presented one is merely obtuse if they refuse to accept it unless they can provide a better one. One would be advised to accept the BEST explanation until such time as it is demonstrated that that explanation is insufficient or a better one is available. As it stands, I believe with confidence that the Judeo-Christian explanation for reality itself is by FAR the "BEST" possible explanation for all of what we percieve to be reality as we know it.

They may "declare" as they wish...and I might confidently say "you ARE wrong"...and not "I THINK you are wrong".

I do not....It is the judgement of this court that QF is, in fact, saved. And that it follows that he maintains the status of a brother in Christ and that wonderful fellowship will be enjoyed with him eternally when our Lord and Saviour explains to us that we both had no stinkin' clue what we were talking about. :wavey: :godisgood:

reductio ad infinitum leading back to the infinite An argument that creates an infinite series of causes that does not seem to have a beginning. As a fallacy, it rests upon Aristotle's notion that all things must have a cause, but that all series of causes must have a sufficient cause, that is, an unmoved mover. An argument which does not seem to have such a beginning becomes difficult to imagine.

The point I am trying to make...althought very good with language, is this. Yes there most certainly is absolute truth, and as such it is not relativistic. However, many people argue such relativisms. My approach, is to gently communicate, I see your point but "disagree" and then do my personal best to state my case as to why. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" approach. I learned this lesson when sharing my faith with atheists and agnostics on Amazon boards. I hope to be used by God to plant seeds, seeds of thought, seeds of inquiry, even seeds of doubt (in alternate "truths). And "hope) with anticipation that God will "confront" them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

reductio ad infinitum leading back to the infinite An argument that creates an infinite series of causes that does not seem to have a beginning. As a fallacy, it rests upon Aristotle's notion that all things must have a cause, but that all series of causes must have a sufficient cause, that is, an unmoved mover. An argument which does not seem to have such a beginning becomes difficult to imagine.

The point I am trying to make...althought very good with language, is this. Yes there most certainly is absolute truth, and as such it is not relativistic. However, many people argue such relativisms. My approach, is to gently communicate, I see your point but "disagree" and then do my personal best to state my case as to why. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" approach. I learned this lesson when sharing my faith with atheists and agnostics on Amazon boards. I hope to be used by God to plant seeds, seeds of thought, seeds of inquiry, even seeds of doubt (in alternate "truths). And "hope) with anticipation that God will "confront" them.

ahhhh, I dont know? :laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hey QF... We've hi-jacked Luke's "I" thread....but, that's ok :smilewinkgrin:
We need to address what you have just said here:

reductio ad infinitum leading back to the infinite An argument that creates an infinite series of causes that does not seem to have a beginning. As a fallacy, it rests upon Aristotle's notion that all things must have a cause, but that all series of causes must have a sufficient cause, that is, an unmoved mover. An argument which does not seem to have such a beginning becomes difficult to imagine.

ABSOLUTELY....So, what's the secret here? Christianity has posited for at least 1,000 years an explanation for what that "un-moved mover" is....I agree completely with Aristotle. All things DO have a cause...MINUS anything which exists necessarily. People really don't usually get what they are saying when they throw around the word "necessary". I am speaking within the framework of Aristotles dictums...Any ultimate "CAUSE"..has an uncaused "CAUSE". The Causal explanation is the God of "Abraham, Isaac, and Anselm". Aristotle is satisfied.
The explanation exists...it is an explanation which is posed to exist "necessarily"... Aristotle may now shut up...it is not an "infinite" chain of causality. It is a chain which has been explained by Christian Philosophers and Theologians for a thousand years...

The point I am trying to make...althought very good with language, is this. Yes there most certainly is absolute truth, and as such it is not relativistic. However, many people argue such relativisms.

They do argue them...but, as you will communicate later: there are more non-provacative ways of clearly conveying "you're wrong" without relativising.

My approach, is to gently communicate, I see your point but "disagree" and then do my personal best to state my case as to why

.
I understand (and do appreciate) your point...but, it isn't EXACTLY so simple as that IMO...I wish it were. One's method and "tone" and "delivery" should always be "gentle"....but that can't come across in mediums such as the internet...Sometimes, they only exist in person. It is simply NOT o.k. for you in any way to permit me to suggest that 2+2=5 in ANY application... I am not mistaken "IN YOUR OPINION"....I'm ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!.
The trick is not to pretend that false notions are meritable...it's to explain truth uncompromisingly, as peacably as possible.

"A soft answer turneth away wrath" approach. I learned this lesson when sharing my faith with atheists and agnostics on Amazon boards. I hope to be used by God to plant seeds, seeds of thought, seeds of inquiry, even seeds of doubt (in alternate "truths). And "hope) with anticipation that God will "confront" them.

Again...I do appreciate such scenarios. You know what??? Much of the time, you will be debating with the utterly "un-reachable"...the incurably Proud, the incurably arrogant, and the ultimately un-teachable...and you know what??? For the sake of the Gospel, they need to be HUMILIATED, FALSIFIED, DEMONSTRATED to be wrong, and left on the ASH-HEAP of failed ideas... They are liars and usually provably false....

One "turns away wrath", but we don't compromise truth to do it. If a sinner on "Amazon" needs me to suggest that 2+2 is...possibly 5, but just more likely, or more probablistically "4".... I will NOT do it.

Some sir, will have "wrath" because of their wicked and un-repentant and un-regenerate nature whether YOU encourage it or not!!
They are NOT to be catered to...........

But, it remains the judgement of this court that you are still "regenerate" or "saved" and a "brother in Christ"...........:wavey:

Not that you asked:laugh:

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin
On a side note: I know the answer to 6÷2(1+2) is 1 and those who say it is 9 are wrong!

And why is that....because we have defined it as such.

Actually, I understand about 50% of people define it differently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZifngGSnB-8

:smilewinkgrin: