Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[christian_soldier]

christian_soldier wrote:
The consequences of human life is death.

Why is this so ?

Hebrews 9

1Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

4Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

5And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

6Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

[Guest]

I said that I did not need to provide an argument for free will in order to show that your argument about Eph 1:11 had a problem. This is obviously true - I am under no obligation to provide a positive argument for the existence of free will in order to point out a defect in an argument that takes another stance on the matter....When you made your argument about Eph 1:11, I provided a detailed argument that the text was consistent with a "free will" reading.

If you provided a detailed argument, then I should be looking at your syllogism, but you have never given one. Give your syllogism which argues that Ephesians 1:11 demonstrates free will, or simply give it a rest. Let me remind you that terms in a syllogism must be defined. So you need to define free will, and then give Scriptural proof supporting your definition--a thing you have never done.

I await your definition, verses supporting your definitions, and of course, your syllogism demonstrating that Ephesians 1:11 teaches free will based upon your study of the so-called free will verses.

The following is the real story about this: I provide 1 Kings and let the words of the text speak for themselves - a literal reading obviously supports a "God does change his mind" position.

Sorry, you come to the text with your own presuppositions. So, what you call the "literal" meaning is biased by your notion that God changes.

The very words, taken at a "literal reading" shows that God indeed changed his mind - this is the content of my argument. You are obliged to show that this plausibility argument of mine is false - you cannot merely provide a claim that this text constitutes an enthymeme and call that an argument.

The true literal meaning gives us the story from a human point of view. You claim it comes from God's point of view. This is twisted. The Lord is not speaking 1st person.

From a human point of view, in those days, when someone contracted a sickness like Hezekiah, there was nothing any human doctor could do, so the Lord is right to tell him to get his house in order for thou shalt die and not live. The fact that God determined for Hezekiah to repent 2 Kings 20:2 and 3 only shows that it was God's plan to use Hezekiah's sickness as an opportunity to glorify Himself and accomplish His will. It was Hezekiah that changed, not God. And this is consistent with Malachi 3:6, which you need to exegete if you think God changes, but I won't hold my breath. So, the idea of an enthymeme is perfectly consistent with the text, and the whole of Scripture, for God has always promised to destroy those who will not obey Him, unless they repent. Hezekiah repented. Therefore God did not destroy him at that time. Again, Hezekiah changed, not God. Perfect consistency, unlike your thinking. Stephen Charnock's literal interpretation of 2 Kings 20 is correct.

Do you believe that the Scripture has contradictions within it? I think you need to answer this question for all of us, since you made the claim that you are under the authority of Scripture. You seem to be asserting that the Bible contradicts itself with your pagan notion that God changes. Please answer this question, for if you have a different doctrine of Scripture, then that would explain why you keep making claims without proof from the Bible.

not simply quote some confusing material about enthymemes and interlocutory sentences.

I think those of us who have studied logic do not find the concept of an 'enthymeme' to be at all confusing.
I look forward to those definitions and syllogisms.

Till then,
Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[christian_soldier]

God's response to the free choice of men:

If only you had paid attention to my commands,
your peace would have been like a river,
your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

"There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked."

Isaiah 48:18 & 22 NIV

 

[Jay T]

God's response to the free choice of men:

If only you had paid attention to my commands,
your peace would have been like a river,
your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

"There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked."

Isaiah 48:18 & 22 NIV

Psalms 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

The 10 commandments (Exodus 20:3-17) provides peace of mind, as long as one is in harmony, with God's Law of Liberty.

 

[Drew]

I said that I did not need to provide an argument for free will in order to show that your argument about Eph 1:11 had a problem. This is obviously true - I am under no obligation to provide a positive argument for the existence of free will in order to point out a defect in an argument that takes another stance on the matter....When you made your argument about Eph 1:11, I provided a detailed argument that the text was consistent with a "free will" reading.

If you provided a detailed argument, then I should be looking at your syllogism, but you have never given one. Give your syllogism which argues that Ephesians 1:11 demonstrates free will, or simply give it a rest. Let me remind you that terms in a syllogism must be defined. So you need to define free will, and then give Scriptural proof supporting your definition--a thing you have never done.

I await your definition, verses supporting your definitions, and of course, your syllogism demonstrating that Ephesians 1:11 teaches free will based upon your study of the so-called free will verses.

Although we are basically bantering over the same issue over and over, I will point out that your demand is simply not reasonable. As others have pointed out, and as is probably obvious to most posters, I am simply under no oblicbation to provide a syllogism which argues that Ephesians 1:11 demonstrates free will. Does anyone other than Red Beetle think that to point out a defect in an argument for God's full determination of man's will, one needs to provide a positive argument for free will? For those who might not know, s syllogism is apparently "a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form."

It is highly telling, and will not escape the reader, that you have at no point attacked my plausibility argument in respect to Ephesians 1:11. If another interpretation of Eph 1:11 is not plausible, why not attack the content of my plausibility argument instead of making an obviously incorrect claim that I need to provide a positive argument for free will?

My plausibility argument is provided on this page of this thread:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=30

 

[JM]

http://mp3.aomin.org/JRW/BahnsenonFaith.mp3

 

[Drew]

The following is the real story about this: I provide 1 Kings and let the words of the text speak for themselves - a literal reading obviously supports a "God does change his mind" position.

Sorry, you come to the text with your own presuppositions. So, what you call the "literal" meaning is biased by your notion that God changes.

There are two problems with this.

First, the same could be said about your argument based on Ephesians 1:11. Here is what you wrote:

Ephesians 1:11 is an indicative verse which infers the absolute determination of all things by our Sovereign God. Here is a syllogism based on Ephesians 1:11.

Calvinism proven from Scripture
God is a being who works all things after the counsel of His will
Man's will is a thing
Therefore, God is a being who works man's will after the counsel of His will

See how simple that is?

How do you support the first premise. By reference to Ephesians 1:11 which reads:

In him we were also chosen,having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

Why would you expect the reader to believe that I have come to 1 Kings 20 text with pre-suppositions and you have not done the same in respect to Ephesians 1:11? Please be specific in your response. What justification do you provide as to why this text requires that God controls all variables when I have provided a coherent case as to why such an interpretation is not required?

The second problem is that all I am making a much "softer" claim than you are in respect to all these texts. With respect to 1 Kings 20, I am merely pointing out that the "plain reading" is consistent with the notion that God has changed his mind. Does the "plain reading" entail presuppositions? Of course - we have to have some interpretive framework that we bring to the text. But you are in the same boat. No one approaches any text without pre-suppositions.

I am making a much less bold claim than you are. I am less ambitious- to this I plead guilty - you are making a case that requires that ambiguity in texts be resolved a certain way. I am undertaking a much less challenging task - to simply point out that the words of texts like Eph 1:11 are consistent with multiple conflicting interpretations. To accomplish this far less lofty goal, all I need to do is to show how the text can be seen as consistent with such conflicting views. But you cannot expect the reader to simply accept that your take on Eph 1;11 is the correct one when an entirely coherent alternate interpretation has been provided.

 

[Drew]

The fact that God determined for Hezekiah to repent 2 Kings 20:2 and 3 only shows that it was God's plan to use Hezekiah's sickness as an opportunity to glorify Himself and accomplish His will.

On what basis do you conclude that God determined that Hez repent. The text you quote 2 Kings 20:2 and 3 states:

Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly

Surely you are not suggesting that this text rules out an intepretation where Hez's repentence was not determined by God? If you are, please explain how such an alternative interpretation is ruled out.

It was Hezekiah that changed, not God. And this is consistent with Malachi 3:6, which you need to exegete if you think God changes, but I won't hold my breath.

The reader will know (or probably infer) that I see the text as consistent with the notion that Hez indeed changed. We need to be careful to interpret texts like Malachi 3:6. Here it is:

I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed

The key question, of course, is whether an assertion that God does not change is consistent with the assertion that God changed his mind. I think it rather obviously is. It is entirely coherent to assert that God does not change in respect to his essential character and attributesyet still can respond to the actions of partially free variables such as the will of man. It seems that you are taking a rather "strong" interpretation of God's "un-changeability". You seem to imply that God's "not changing" requires that history be pre-scripted. I do not see this as necessary. God can remain constant in essential characteristics and yet still act dynamically (and therefore "change" in this different sense) in response to a created order to which he has allocated some "freedom".

 

[Drew]

Do you believe that the Scripture has contradictions within it? I think you need to answer this question for all of us, since you made the claim that you are under the authority of Scripture. You seem to be asserting that the Bible contradicts itself with your pagan notion that God changes. Please answer this question, for if you have a different doctrine of Scripture, then that would explain why you keep making claims without proof from the Bible

I do not believe the Scriptures has contradictions in it and any reader with a lick of sense will know your statement here begs the question by expecting us all to accept your unsupported position that God does not change - in the sense that you require for your position on texts like 2 King 20 to be supported. If you claim Malachi 3:6 as support, I would repeat what I write in earlier post - one can legitimately see this text as suggesting that God does not change in his characteristics and attributes.

And the use of the word "pagan" is entirely beneath the level of discourse I am hoping for. As for your claim to have studied logic - we'll let the reader judge whether you are putting this knowledge into practice in this thread. Why not use this training in logic to poke holes in my plausibility argument re Ephesian 1:11. It can be found here:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=30

 

[christian_soldier]

Drew,

You are wasting your time. Beetle thinks the logic of man can be used to discern scripture.

:o

 

[Guest]

Drew wrote:

I said that I did not need to provide an argument for free will in order to show that your argument about Eph 1:11 had a problem. This is obviously true - I am under no obligation to provide a positive argument for the existence of free will in order to point out a defect in an argument that takes another stance on the matter....When you made your argument about Eph 1:11, I provided a detailed argument that the text was consistent with a "free will" reading.

If you provided a detailed argument, then I should be looking at your syllogism, but you have never given one. Give your syllogism which argues that Ephesians 1:11 demonstrates free will, or simply give it a rest. Let me remind you that terms in a syllogism must be defined. So you need to define free will, and then give Scriptural proof supporting your definition--a thing you have never done.

I await your definition, verses supporting your definitions, and of course, your syllogism demonstrating that Ephesians 1:11 teaches free will based upon your study of the so-called free will verses.

 

[Guest]

Furthermore, it is well to point out here that the reason Drew never attempts to prove his assertions from Scripture is because he does not believe that the Bible is the only authority in matters of faith and practice. Drew thinks that empiricism is the source of truth for humans. On another thread, Christianity and the Source of all Truth, he clearly states,

"I do believe that God teaches us about truth in other ways as well - through the "lessons of life" for example. And also through an empirical approach to gaining knowledge. So, for example, I do not believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old even though a "literal" reading of the Scriptures would tend to promote such a view."

Drew goes on to demonstrate that the Scriptures are not sufficient for him. He states:

"In a sense I think that 'separating' the teaching of Scriptures from the lessons and data of life is a separation that cannot work."

(1) Anyone who claims the teachings of the Bible alone are not sufficient and will not work is someone who denies the sufficiency of Scripture as taught in 2 Timothy 3:15-17

(2) Drew claims the teachings of the Bible alone are not sufficient and will not work (see Drew's remarks highligted above)

(3) Therefore, Drew is someone who denies the sufficiency of Scripture as taught in 2 Timothy 3:15-17

The above syllogism demonstrates why Drew continually refuses to define key terms he uses, even in his so-called "plausibility argument". No wonder he will not define "free will" from the Bible, he does not believe that it is sufficient to do so. This is why his analogies have nothing to do with what the Scripture teaches. He is playing with a different deck of cards. So, since he is using a completely different source of truth, no one can know what Drew means when he says, "God", "free will", or even "man". Furthermore, empiricism is notorious for its dependence upon the fallacies of inductive reasoning, and its rejection of deductive reasoning. No wonder he never bothers to give a syllogism in his defense or teachings. His empiricism also explains his pyrrhonian scepticism.

So now I think it is clear that if any further argumentation is to occur, then Drew is responsible for giving clear definitions of the following terms in light of his rejection of Scripture as the only source of truth and authority in matters of faith and practice: "free will", "God", and "man".

And let's be honest, Drew is using terms he refuses to define. For example in his so-called argument, Drew writes,

"Is the real world like this in respect to our free will and God's will fulfillment in respect to one or more purposes "P"? I am not sure that it is.

As one can see from what I quoted above, Drew admits, after all of his "arguing," that he isn't sure that his own analogies and conclusions have anything to do with the real world, but he is sure that Calvinism is wrong.
Doesn't that just sound plausible? :wink:

Drew wants to use the term "free will" without having to define it. You see, for Drew, "free will" is something he-knows-not-what. It is meaningless. And until he defines it, it will always be meaningless when he argues against Calvinism.
Again, when Drew uses the term "free will", then what does he mean? Is his definition something he "sensed"? He is an empiricist. Or can it be deduced from the Scripture alone. Not from Scripture alone, at least he never makes an attempt to do so.

Reasoning from the Scriptures Alone
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Now, since we have come to learn that Drew's starting point is different from Christianity, we can now properly examine his thinking on other subjects he has attacked on this thread--such as the immutability of God.

Drew earlier tried to use what he called a "literal reading" of a passage in 2 Kings 20 to claim that God changes. But in light of Drew's recent confession that a literal reading can be rejected:

I do not believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old even though a "literal" reading of the Scriptures would tend to promote such a view.

It is clear that whatever he means by "literal reading" is certainly not authoritative in any sense. Drew's interpretation of the Bible is as eclectic as his epistemology. He has produced no method of determining what literal passages can and can not be accepted as true in light of his criticism of Biblical creation and empiricism. Clearly he has forced the Bible to fit his "scientific" view of the world. This also reveals his real god and master, which is scientific empirical method.

Drew's exegesis of 2 Kings 20 is not based upon the Analogy of Faith, and this is why he refuses to interpret the less clear places in Scripture with the more precise (his fear of Malachi 3:6 demonstrates this). He is interpreting the Bible through the lenses of logical positivism. This is what happens when you do not let Scripture interpret Scripture. You end up with heresy.

Since Drew's starting point is so radically different from Christianity, and since it rejects the Bible alone as the source of truth, then no intelligent argument can continue with him on Biblical determinism, the immutability of God, or other doctrines deduced from Scripture.

The only argument that can go on now with Drew is whether the Bible alone is the Word of God, or whether empiricism is a source of truth.

I welcome any other attempt from any Christian here who wishes to prove Biblical determinism wrong and free will correct from the Scriptures alone.

Sola Scriptura
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

Drew wrote:

I said that I did not need to provide an argument for free will in order to show that your argument about Eph 1:11 had a problem. This is obviously true - I am under no obligation to provide a positive argument for the existence of free will in order to point out a defect in an argument that takes another stance on the matter....When you made your argument about Eph 1:11, I provided a detailed argument that the text was consistent with a "free will" reading.

If you provided a detailed argument, then I should be looking at your syllogism, but you have never given one. Give your syllogism which argues that Ephesians 1:11 demonstrates free will, or simply give it a rest. Let me remind you that terms in a syllogism must be defined. So you need to define free will, and then give Scriptural proof supporting your definition--a thing you have never done.

I have not tired of responding to this patently incorrect line of reasoning.

This is the history:

1. RB presented a syllogism (a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form) for God's determination of the will of man.

2. I point out that the syllogism is flawed, since one of the premises is not justified.

3. RB has never responded to the content of my argument. A lot of back and forth can be spared if he will respond to my critique of his argument.

4. RB seems to think that the way to proceed is to demand that I provide a syllogism for free will.

Is this sensible? If Fred provides a proof for assertion X and Joe finds an error in that proof, is Joe obliged to provide a proof for "Not X"?

 

[Drew]

Furthermore, it is well to point out here that the reason Drew never attempts to prove his assertions from Scripture is because he does not believe that the Bible is the only authority in matters of faith and practice. Drew thinks that empiricism is the source of truth for humans. On another thread, Christianity and the Source of all Truth, he clearly states,

"I do believe that God teaches us about truth in other ways as well - through the "lessons of life" for example. And also through an empirical approach to gaining knowledge. So, for example, I do not believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old even though a "literal" reading of the Scriptures would tend to promote such a view."

To say that I have said that "empiricism is the source of truth for humans"
is a blatant misrepresentation of what I have said, and RB must be hoping that people are not reading carefully. I have clearly stated that Scripture is authoritative in matters of faith. Again, it would serve RB's position to paint the issue as a stark choice between Scriptural authority and a commitment to empiricism. In another post I wrote:

I can claim the Genesis account, if not strictly literal, still teaches authoritatively on the nature of man, God and their relationship to one another

Let my own words speak for me, not the distortions that you are seeing in this thread.

 

[Drew]

Drew goes on to demonstrate that the Scriptures are not sufficient for him. He states:

"In a sense I think that 'separating' the teaching of Scriptures from the lessons and data of life is a separation that cannot work."

(1) Anyone who claims the teachings of the Bible alone are not sufficient and will not work is someone who denies the sufficiency of Scripture as taught in 2 Timothy 3:15-17

Let's see what 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says and examine what I have said in relation to it:

"and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"

This text states the Scriptures do a lot of things - makes a man wise for salvation and makes a man thoroughly equipped for every good work, etc. Does require these riches are imparted in an "empty" context? Of course not. All I am really saying is that it is entirely sensible to see the Scriptures as authoritative and useful in a specific context - the context of the real world of experience as presented to you and me.

I am saying that the Scriptures were written to guide man in a real world - the world of experience - and that to try to disentangle the two is like trying to say that the Porshe is a great car without reference to the characteristics of the environment in which it will be driven.

 

[Drew]

(1) Anyone who claims the teachings of the Bible alone are not sufficient and will not work is someone who denies the sufficiency of Scripture as taught in 2 Timothy 3:15-17

(2) Drew claims the teachings of the Bible alone are not sufficient and will not work (see Drew's remarks highligted above)

(3) Therefore, Drew is someone who denies the sufficiency of Scripture as taught in 2 Timothy 3:15-17

The above syllogism demonstrates why Drew continually refuses to define key terms he uses, even in his so-called "plausibility argument". No wonder he will not define "free will" from the Bible, he does not believe that it is sufficient to do so. This is why his analogies have nothing to do with what the Scripture teaches. He is playing with a different deck of cards. So, since he is using a completely different source of truth, no one can know what Drew means when he says, "God", "free will", or even "man". Furthermore, empiricism is notorious for its dependence upon the fallacies of inductive reasoning, and its rejection of deductive reasoning. No wonder he never bothers to give a syllogism in his defense or teachings. His empiricism also explains his pyrrhonian scepticism.

The continual claim that I need to provide to a positive argument for free will only undermines your credibility. I critiqued an argument of yours - that's it that's all. I did not promise to provide a theological tome supporting free will - and nor am I obliged to in any sense.

The above "syllogism" is highly suspect. I am only saying that it is meaningless to talk about the authority of Scripture without reference to a specific world - our world. RB seems to be leveraging this into a claim that I do not see Scripture as sufficient. This would be like painting me as someone who denies the sufficiency of penicillin to cure an infection just because I make the rather obvious claim that its sufficiency is intimately interwoven with the characteristics of the human body that it is injected into.

There is no issue here. Remember what I said:

In a sense I think that 'separating' the teaching of Scriptures from the lessons and data of life is a separation that cannot work.

Imagine that I had written:

I think that 'separating' the effectiveness of penicillin from the characteristics of the human body is a separation that cannot work.

Would this place me in a position where I could be accused of denying the sufficiency of penicillin? Of course not.

The Scriptures are provided to us for our world - its teachings are designed to help us live in this world. We need to know about "this" world in order to discern the truth of the Scriptures. And emprirical experience is a contributor to that learning.

 

[JM]

Red Beetle

Good posts RED!

 

[Drew]

As one can see from what I quoted above, Drew admits, after all of his "arguing," that he isn't sure that his own analogies and conclusions have anything to do with the real world, but he is sure that Calvinism is wrong.

Where, and I want a specific post, do I claim that I am sure that Calvinism is wrong. I have, of course, never made such a claim.

 

[Drew]

Good posts RED!

JM - you have not answered my question: Is it at least possible that your views on correct Christian doctrine are mistaken?

Why not just answer the question?