Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[Guest]

Is this text evidence that God's controls all the events and actions in our universe? Methinks not.

Your opinion, but will there be any syllogism proving from Scriptures that there is this mystical thing you call "free" will that is never even mentioned in the Bible? Methinks not.

It is entirely consistent with such a view

Yes, I have already demonstrated that it is consistent with my view by giving syllogistic and other textual support.

but it is also entirely consistent with another view

Absurd, the verse is only consistent with one interpretation, that is, the correct one. Contraries can both be wrong, but they can not both be right, you simply need to study logic.

This view of the sovereignty of God entails that central idea that God weaves the events of our world to achieve His purposes,

This is unintelligent, for you have never shown how God can control the world without violating man's "free" will. You got your work cut out for you.

while leaving some variables "free", such as the will of man (at least to some degree).
Although God does not control everything, His goals are still achieved.

This assumes that something can be metaphysically free from God and still exist. You have no where demonstrated this, and the Bible is clear that nothing can exist with out God preserving and governing it. Acts 17:28 and Hebrews 1:3 demonstrate that the will of man must be upheld, preserved, and governed or it could not even exist. The will of man is dependent upon God for its existence, therefore it can, by definition, not be free. Only God, who is self-existent (Exodus 3:14) can be free. Consider the following syllogisms:
__________________________________________________________________
Premise One
God is a being who preserves all of His creation (Hebrews 1:3)

Premise Two
Man's will is part of creation

Conclusion
God is a being who preserves man's will (Acts 17:28)

Premise One
If anything is free from God, then it must be self-existing (Acts 17:28)

Premise Two
Man's will is free from God (Drew's premise)

Conclusion
Man's will is self-existent (logical conclusion)

Premise One
Anything that is self-existent is something not created by God (John 1:3)

Premise Two
Man's will is self-existent (conclusion from previous syllogism)

Conclusion
Man's will is something not created by God
(blasphemy--for it contradicts the fact that God created man in the first place--body and soul--Genesis chapters 1 and 2)

I hope this demonstration of reasoning from the Scriptures will help you to better understand Calvinism and your own position.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Jay T]

Premise One
Anything that is self-existent is something not created by God (John 1:3)

Kind of like Sunday worship services ?

 

[Fnerb]

Kind of like Sunday worship services ?

Now who's ignoring scripture?

Colossians 2:13-16:

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

 

[Solo]

Now who's ignoring scripture?

Colossians 2:13-16:

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

Forget it Fnerb, unfortunately, Jay T does not seem to be able to comprehend spiritual things. Jay T has been brainwashed as many are in the various cults. I have researched the Seventh Day Adventist cult the most in the last year of any other, and I am confident that Jay T needs all of your prayers in order to be released from the bondage that he is under. He is probably tied to this belief system monitarily, and would need to have much faith in Jesus Christ to leave this camp of false teaching.

 

[Drew]

Hello Red Beetle:

Your condescension might be understandable if you were not being so obviously handed your hat in these discussions.

 

[Solo]

It is easier for me to believe that God chooses who will be saved and who will go to hell better than my believing any of Drew's teachings on God's inabilities. But hey, we will all know one day, saved or not!

 

[Guest]

Here is a syllogism I use to demonstrate the meaning of life, while making use of God's absolute determination from the Scriptures.

It is a bit more difficult to follow than the previous arguments above due to the notation. But, I have kept the notation to a minimal, so just take your time and don't be intimidated.




Let J = Jehovah
Let O = omnipotent
Let B = a being
Let M = always effectual in moving man's will
Let A = always accomplishing His desires
Let G = self glorification
Let R = fully determining the reprobate's mind
Let E = fully determining the elect's mind
Let T = therefore



1) J is O (Jeremiah 32:17)
2) J is B who is A (Job 23:13)
3) J's will is M (Romans 9:19)
4) J is B who is M (Proverbs 16:1)
5) J is B who desires G by R (Romans 9:22)
6) J is B who desires G by E (Romans 9:23)
7) T, J is B (O, A, and M) who accomplishes G by R and E



Premises 1 and 2 are almost always accepted by men. Premises 3, 4, 5, and 6 are almost always challenged by advocates of free will and agnostics/atheists. I submit that if 1-6 is true, then 7 necessarily follows.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Jay T]

Now who's ignoring scripture?

OK....where in all the Bible does God authorize Sunday worship services ?

Did Jesus mention anything about it ?

Surely if anyone had the authority to command observance of Sunday as being special .....Jesus had the most perfect right, to have mentioned it, right ?

Colossians 2:13-16:

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

Don't you realize that this is speaking to the Christian ...not to let anyone judge you, for keeping God sabbath day Holy, as God said to do ?

The Apostle Paul, was the one who wrote that, right ?

AND he kept the 7th day sabbath.....
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Paul said of himself......
Acts 25:8 " While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all".

QUESTION: How could Paul have said that ...IF...he did not keep the sabbath days ?

 

[Drew]

Now, when I claimed that my view on Ephesians 1:11 was the correct reading, you told me that you did not have to give a counter argument, but you could simply disagree.

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.

Now, when you bring up 1 Kings and make a claim, which I reject, then you claim I must give an argument, which I did by the way. But, don't I have a right to simply disagree, or is that reserved for skeptics only? Ha!

This is misleading. 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. 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.

When you made your argument about Eph 1:11, I provided a detailed argument that the text was consistent with a "free will" reading. Interestingly, you did not attack the content of my argument. Now I have made an argument about 1 Kings 20. I never, repeat never, claimed 1 Kings 20 was not consistent with a Calvinist reading. But you need to make an actual case to undermine the "God changes his mind" reading, not simply quote some confusing material about enthymemes and interlocutory sentences.

The situations are not analogous.

 

[Fnerb]

OK....where in all the Bible does God authorize Sunday worship services ?

Did Jesus mention anything about it ?

Surely if anyone had the authority to command observance of Sunday as being special .....Jesus had the most perfect right, to have mentioned it, right ?

Perhaps it was my mistake to leave out verse 17

17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

The saturday sabath is an OT regulation. Those regulations and observances lost their significance when Christ came and completed his work of redemption. We are no longer bound by the ceremonial regulations of the Old Testament. In the New Testament God commands us to worship but does not mandate a specific day of the week.

 

[Drew]

Is this text evidence that God's controls all the events and actions in our universe? Methinks not.

Your opinion, but will there be any syllogism proving from Scriptures that there is this mystical thing you call "free" will that is never even mentioned in the Bible? Methinks not.

This is simply incorrect argumentation. As has been pointed out many times in this thread: the fact that text "A" is consistent with interpretation "X" does not make it evidence for X if there is another reading "B" such that X is equally consistent with B. Red Beetle is trying to get you to believe that I need to provide a Biblical argument for free will simply to show how certain texts are merely consistent with a free will reading. Please read carefully - I have never claimed that the "sparrows" text is not also consistent with a Calvinist take - in fact, Red Beetle quotes me to that effect as follows:

It is entirely consistent with such a view

Yes, I have already demonstrated that it is consistent with my view by giving syllogistic and other textual support.

Agree. The text is indeed consistent with your view. But since it is consistent with a competing view, the text does little, if anything, to establish the correctness of your view.

but it is also entirely consistent with another view

Absurd, the verse is only consistent with one interpretation, that is, the correct one. Contraries can both be wrong, but they can not both be right, you simply need to study logic.

This is not absurd and I have no idea how Red Beetle presumes to lecture us on logic and yet continually makes such errors. Of course "Contraries can both be wrong, but they can not both be right". No one, least of all me, is disputing this. All I had stated as definitive, beyond expressing my opinion on the matter, was that the "sparrows" text is consistent with a reading that denies God's control of all variables. Red Beetle is trying to get you to believe that I have worked myself into a position where I am saying this text is supportive of two contradictory positions. I have never stated or remotely implied such a thing - check it out if you wish by rereading my posts.

Just in case things are not crystal clear, consider the following statement:

X. A large male was seen leaving the murder scene but was only seen as a shape in the dark.

This is consistent with both the following positions:

A. The murderer is Fred.
B. The murderer is Joe.

Of course, the murderer cannot be Fred and Joe (remember, only one man seen fleeing the crime scene). RB, whether intentionally or not, is representing me as taking such a view.

 

[Drew]

Let J = Jehovah
Let O = omnipotent
Let B = a being
Let M = always effectual in moving man's will
Let A = always accomplishing His desires
Let G = self glorification
Let R = fully determining the reprobate's mind
Let E = fully determining the elect's mind
Let T = therefore


1) J is O (Jeremiah 32:17)
2) J is B who is A (Job 23:13)
3) J's will is M (Romans 9:19)
4) J is B who is M (Proverbs 16:1)
5) J is B who desires G by R (Romans 9:22)
6) J is B who desires G by E (Romans 9:23)
7) T, J is B (O, A, and M) who accomplishes G by R and E

I think there are problems with 5 and 6 - but only in the specific sense that they are not supported by the referenced texts. They may turn out to be true, but they should not be deemed so specifically in light of Romans 9:22 and 9:23, respectively.

Assertion 5 is that Jehovah is a Being who desires glorification by fully determining the reprobate's mind (my bolding). Does Romans 9:22 support this?

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction?"

I submit that this text does not justify a conclusion of full determination of the reprobate's mind. Here is why: it is entirely coherent to assert that some men are "prepared for destruction" in the "pre-destined for hell" sense and yet hold that not all of their mental acts are fully determined by God.

In order for assertion 5 to be justified by Romans 9:22, it would need to be the case that "preparing a man for destruction" entails (necessarily implies) "fully determining his mind". We need to see such a case, especially in light of the eminent plausibility of the assertion that God can exert partial control over the mind of the reprobate and still achieve His intent to "destroy" him.

What is my support for this assertion of plausiblity? It is provided in a post in this thread dated 3 Jan at 1:04 PM (eastern time):

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

I propose that the same issue applies to assertion 6 - Romans 9:23 does not justify a conclusion that God fully determines the mind of the elect.

 

[Drew]

Just in case anyone is confused by what I mean when I say that text "A" is consistent with 2 contradictory interpretations "X" and "Y":

For A to be consistent with interpretation X means that interpretation X does not create a logical contradiction of some sort in respect to A. In other words, in the absence of other information, interpretation X is possibly correct.

It is possible that some you think that I use the phrase "consistent with" in the same sense as the phrase "supportive of". I am not using the word that way. Saying a text is consistent with an interpretation X does not really accomplish much except to establish that X could be correct.

So there is no problem of logic in claiming that text A is consistent with 2 contradictory intepretations.

 

[Jay T]

Perhaps it was my mistake to leave out verse 17

17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

The saturday sabath is an OT regulation.

Explain then Jesus Christ's words:
Matthew 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

QUESTION: Since Jesus mentioned the sabbath, in context, of the Tribulation period.......Is the Tribulation past or yet future, from the point of HIS saying these words ?

Those regulations and observances lost their significance when Christ came and completed his work of redemption. We are no longer bound by the ceremonial regulations of the Old Testament.

OK, since you want to throw out the 4th commandment, the 7th day sabbath....what about the 8th commandment, "Thou shalt not steal".....Can we throw out the 3rd commandment also...."Thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in Vain" ?


FYI....the 4th commandment is NOT ceremonial....it is part of the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:3-17)

In the New Testament God commands us to worship but does not mandate a specific day of the week.

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

From this Bible verse I think Jesus called the sabbath, the Lord's Day.

And from what I read, Jesus went into the churches of that time, on the sabbath......
1 John 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

 

[Fnerb]

Obivously there is nothing more than can be said. We are just going to keep quoting the same scripture. All I can say is what I have said before...

OK, since you want to throw out the 4th commandment, the 7th day sabbath....what about the 8th commandment, "Thou shalt not steal".....Can we throw out the 3rd commandment also...."Thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in Vain" ?

I never said to throw out the 3rd commandment (or the 4th as you number them). I will quote a respons from a WELS pastor directly regarding this:

"Lutherans teach that the observance of the seventh day Sabbath is part of the ceremonial law which was in place until Christ completed his work of redemption. In the New Testament there is no ceremonial law. It is God's will that we gather to worship (Hebrews 11:25), but he has not specified a particular day of the week for worship. We have Christian freedom to gather for public worship on Sunday or any other day of the week. St. Paul writes, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of things to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17)."

We are obviously going to go no where with this...

 

[Jay T]

Obivously there is nothing more than can be said. We are just going to keep quoting the same scripture. All I can say is what I have said before...

I never said to throw out the 3rd commandment (or the 4th as you number them). I will quote a respons from a WELS pastor directly regarding this:

"Lutherans teach

WHOA !
Lutherans teach ?
What about the Bible?
Doesn't it mean anything ?
[quote:88d14]
that the observance of the seventh day Sabbath is part of the ceremonial law which was in place until Christ completed his work of redemption. In the New Testament there is no ceremonial law. It is God's will that we gather to worship (Hebrews 11:25), but he has not specified a particular day of the week for worship.

15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?


15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.
15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

We have Christian freedom to gather for public worship on Sunday or any other day of the week. St. Paul writes, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of things to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17)."

[/quote:88d14]

Then why did Paul keep the sabbath days himself.....
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Was Paul lying here ?

 

[lovely]

Hi Red Beetle,

I enjoyed your OP, and found it Biblical. I also appreciate the list of ways to glorify God...good reminders, and encouraging. I was thinking tonight, after reading John 13, that one of the ways we can glorify God is to serve our brothers and sisters in humility as our Master did.

John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

Happy are we if we do them.

The Lord bless you.

 

[Jay T]

Every act, however small, has its place in the great drama of life.

Consider that the desire for a single gratification of appetite introduced sin into our world, with its terrible consequences.


The most trifling act of self-indulgence has resulted in great revolutions. This is the case now.

There are very few who are living as God wants us to.
Like the children of Israel, they will not take heed to words of counsel, but follow their own inclination.

They unite with a worldly element in attending gatherings where they will be brought into notice, and thus lead the way and others follow.

What has been done once will be done again by themselves and many others.

Every step these take makes a lasting impression, not only on their own consciences and habits, but upon those of others.

This consideration gives awful thought, to the consequences, of human life.

 

[christian_soldier]

The consequences of human life is death.

Contrary to the opinions of some, God gave man the freedom to make their own choices, as if evidenced by God's grief at the way His creation turned out.

Genesis 6

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Thank God for His graciousness and for the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[Jay T]

The consequences of human life is death.

Why is this so ?