Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[Drew]

I showed plainly from the Bible that my interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 is Scriptural. To refuse my interpretation requires a counter demonstration from Scripture. Before any debate can take place there must be a common acceptance of specific terms. Scripture Alone is my basis for argument, you have no basis for any argument.

You have made no significant case at all that your view of Eph 1:11 is scriptural. Interestingly, you have yet made no comments on my rather detailed argument that indeed Eph 1:11 can be interpreted another way. If my argument does not establish the plausibility of this other interpretation, why not attack that argument rather than creating a misleading issue out of the Sola Scriptura issue?

You yourself have stated that the laws of logic can be deduced from Scripture. And you yourself have made "logical" arguments. On what basis do you believe that your logic is more scripturally informed than mine? Please be specific.

 

[JM]

There is, of course, no statement or implication to the effect that "Scripture is not my only authority" in the quoted material above. It is interesting that Red Beetle has not countered what I actually argued - namely that he has illicitly shifted the responsibility for a Biblical proof to me when all I have done is to question the validity of an argument that he put forth.

The problem with your posts Drew is the lack of definition of what you actually believe. What do you believe concerning the Bible? What you actually argued is contrary to what RED posted, so we must shift to you and the responsibility for proof now becomes all yours.

Imagine if Red Beetle put forth a "proof", say, that the number of prime numbers is finite. Imagine that I then point out a weakness in his argument - perhaps one of his premises is faulty. Does my objection lose its force if I cannot prove that the number of primes is in fact infinite? Of course not. Red Beetle cannot shift responsibility for his suspect argument that God "works" Man's will by insisting that I prove that man has "free will".

Imagine if Drew posted argument as to what he believes [which is yet to be defined] and I point out the weakness from which the argument begins – perhaps Drew begin with the wrong presuppositions on authority for example. His argument then becomes secondary to the epistlemology nature from which it stems because the grounding in which Drew is arguing is false ground.

The fact that I did not use Scripture is of no consequence to the particular matter at issue. I pointed out a flaw in your argument by applying principles of sound and reasonable argument. If you wish to attack the specific content of my counterarguments, then please do so. But do not expect the readers to fall for the tired "he is not using scripture" argument. And please, have a little respect for the readers - the use of rhetorical devices, such as implying that I am a pagan, does not reflect well on your position.

When the atheist points “out a flaw in your argument by applying principles of sound and reasonable argument†are we to accept it as well? Is logic or reason sound that isn’t Bible based or proven from Scripture? I’d say not. The atheist offers what they believe to be sound and reasonable arguments for denying the resurrection and we deny them, so we deny Drew’s arguments on the same basis as unscriptural.

The bottom line is that I have every right to expose a possible flaw of logic in your argument without being expected to produce a lengthy tome explaining how my principles of logic are grounded in the Scriptures. Nor am I obliged to provide Biblical support for the free will position. That might be for another day.

Now the atheist will say, “The bottom line is that I have every right to expose a possible flaw of logic in your argument without being expected to produce a lengthy tome explaining how my principles of logic are grounded in Scriptures. Nor am I obliged to provide Biblical support for [insert argument here] position. That might be for another day.

What’s the difference between RED and Drew? Scripture.

~JM~

 

[Drew]

The point is that your stories have no basis in Scripture, therefore they are worthless. We care what the Bible teaches, not what you dream up.

Red Beetle

The reader is encouraged to analyse my analogy and decide for him or herself whether it is a compelling counterargument to your take on Eph 1:11. I hope that the readers will examine the actual content of the argument and judge it on its own merits.

If it is a "dreamed up story" that fails to establish the plausibility of another take on Eph 1:11, then why not expose it as such - attack the content and leave the rhetoric to the politicians. Calling other people's arguments "worthless" and suggesting that they engage in flights of fancy does not really contribute to our collective search for truth.

 

[JM]

You have made no significant case at all that your view of Eph 1:11 is scriptural. Interestingly, you have yet made no comments on my rather detailed argument that indeed Eph 1:11 can be interpreted another way. If my argument does not establish the plausibility of this other interpretation, why not attack that argument rather than creating a misleading issue out of the Sola Scriptura issue?

You idea of another possibilities has been pointed out to you before as unscriptural. RED can prove what he believes by using scripture to back it, which you are unwilling to do.

obtained an inheritance: Eph_1:18, Act_26:18, Deu_4:20; Deu_9:29; Deu_32:9,

predestinated: Eph_1:5, Eph_1:13

purpose: Eph_1:9; Eph_3:11

You yourself have stated that the laws of logic can be deduced from Scripture. And you yourself have made "logical" arguments. On what basis do you believe that your logic is more scripturally informed than mine? Please be specific.

There is a consistency within the arguments RED is presenting, this internal consistency doesn't allow for the possiblity argument you present.

~JM~

 

[JM]

The reader is encouraged to analyse my analogy and decide for him or herself whether it is a compelling counterargument to your take on Eph 1:11. I hope that the readers will examine the actual content of the argument and judge it on its own merits.

The reader may also be encouraged to analyse Drew’s words in accordance with Scripture, the arguments Drew presents are based on HIS analogy and not Scripture. Decide if you’re willing to allow analogy or the Scripture as your authority.

If it is a "dreamed up story" that fails to establish the plausibility of another take on Eph 1:11, then why not expose it as such - attack the content and leave the rhetoric to the politicians. Calling other people's arguments "worthless" and suggesting that they engage in flights of fancy does not really contribute to our collective search for truth.

Analogies are useful tools, but not a means to determine validity of an argument, they only further illustrate what the story writer already believes is true. Analogies begin with the assumption of what you're explaining is truth, but fails to prove it.

~JM~

 

[Drew]

What’s the difference between RED and Drew? Scripture.

I think that there is another difference, but I will let the readers guess at what that might be.

 

[TanNinety]

I think that there is another difference, but I will let the readers guess at what that might be.

My first guess is ad hominem. Then again I couldn't miss the red herrings of "show me the scripture" while Drew actually provided a counter-argument based on the scripture posted by the OP.

 

[TanNinety]

I showed plainly from the Bible that my interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 is Scriptural. To refuse my interpretation requires a counter demonstration from Scripture.

Not only counter demonstration from scripture but also an alternate interpretation of the same scripture you provided is valid to refuse your interpretation. which Drew has done in his counter-argument which you refuse to consider.

 

[JM]

My first guess is ad hominem. Then again I couldn't miss the red herrings of "show me the scripture" while Drew actually provided a counter-argument based on the scripture posted by the OP.

Just so Tan understand what he's talking about:

red herring: Something that draws attention away from the central issue.
ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.

Both are false accusations. Asking for proof from Scripture on a Christian forum is not drawing attention away from the central issue, but asking to prove the central issue by a common accepted truth.

And when I noticed Tan's name in the General Forum I thought he had a soynut butter recipe for me!

:

~JM~

 

[Drew]

The reader may also be encouraged to analyse Drew’s words in accordance with Scripture, the arguments Drew presents are based on HIS analogy and not Scripture. Decide if you’re willing to allow analogy or the Scripture as your authority

The problem is that everyone thinks, analyses, reasons over the things they read in the Scriptures or at least they should. It is a convenient myth to think that one's take on the meaning of the Scriptures is somehow priveleged and does not even need to be defended. This is essentially the stance that I see many taking. They abdicate the responsibility to think hard about what they read, and consider alternate interpretations - yes we all are wrong about at least one thing in our interpretation of the Scriptures.

Analogies, arguments, etc. are the tools of responsible interaction with the Scriptures. The irony is that those who undertake such efforts are often dismissed.

The matter is obviously not as simple as some make it out to be. Take Eph 1:11. No one has challenged my interpretation yet. Why not? Is it because there is only one "obvious" interpretation? If this is the case, then by all means, point out the flaw in my argument. This should be do-able if in fact there is only one interpretation to that text.

Let us not live in the fantasy that acts of interpretation are not required when we read the Scriptures.

We all agree that the Scriptures are authoritative (I do, anyway). The problem is that we obviously do not agree on what they mean. When such disagreements arise I can think of at least 2 options:

1. Dismiss those of an opposing mind without considering their arguments, and hold them up as pagans.

2. Engage in the very serious business of taking other's views seriously and work together with the goal of establishing truth.

What do I believe? Fair question. I will say this related to the context of this thread.

I believe that the Scriptures teach that man has a degree of free will and that God's sovereignty is one where his purposes are met even though man's will is at least partially free.

I suspect that I know how a Biblical defence of such a position will proceed. We will quote the same text and ascribe different meanings to it. If past history is any indication, a hopeless stalemate will ensue.

I will endeavour to provide more Biblical support for my positions in future posts.

 

[JM]

I know Drew won’t mind if I take a crack at it.

Let's examine premise 1 ("God is a being who works all things after the counsel of His will").

Scriptural Support:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

What meanings can we legitimately ascribe to this Scriptural statement?

kleroo = inheritance, “which refers to a purpose.†One commentary reads, “We were made to have an inheritance.â€Â
proorizo = predestination, which means “to predetermine before hand.â€Â
energeo = work, which means “to be operative, be at work, put forth power.â€Â
pas = is translated as “all things†and means “individually: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything. â€Â
kata = is translated as after in the KJV and means “down from, through out, according to, toward, along.â€Â
boule = “counsel and purpose.â€Â
hautou = his own meaning, “of himself.â€Â
thele = will, which is “what one wishes or has determined shall be done.â€Â

We can conclude from the Greek that those being spoken of in Eph. 1 were made for the inheritance of which they have, being predestined before hand and this is according to the purpose of God who puts forth power in all things including individual as in every, any, all, the whole including everyone. This is kata/after the will of God that comes down from His counsel and divine purpose, without any outside influence from man but hautou/his own and of Himself and by His own will that he has determined shall be done.

Thanks to jg who sent me a Greek text book along with a workbook my interest in the Greek has increased encouraging me to study a little deeper. It’s clear from the Greek that RED was correct, another interpratation based on the Greek is not valid for the very meaning of the words used will not allow it.

Phi 2:12-13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

To add, Paul tells us that it is God who gives us the will do His good pleasure. When we "work out our salvation" its God's will that allows us to "will and to do" the work that results in His "good pleasure.. This is why we need Scripture and not illustrations.

~JM~
PS: The Greek when I cut and pasted it from my e-sword Bible program added number signs and a few symbols that were not in the program itself, forgive me if there are spelling mistakes I'm still learning. The meanings are true however and can be reviewed in Thayer's Greek.

 

[christian_soldier]

The "any", in the verse above from 2 Peter 3:9, are the elect, as it is clear from the context of both books of Peter. Notice the "to us-ward", this limits the discussion to the elect, and does not include the reprobate class.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

Why would the Lord need to be long suffering in delaying His return? The elect are saved already. Any reprobate, by your view, are only reprobate because they are not elect. What is the criteria for electing some and leaving the rest in the dark? How does one have assurance in salvation?

 

[Guest]

Why isn't the word translated as 'logic', then? I think there is a reason most scholars translate 'logos' as 'Word'. I believe that you mislead people by using various leaps of translation on which to base an entire theology.

I think, though, that God is logical above and beyond any of our understanding. Our logic is muddled with various influences like sin, emotions, experiences, deception, chocolate, and cute puppies, just to name a few.

The greek word logos is where we get our term for logic. But, if you want to translate it as "word", then it still implies logic. For words must have definitions. Definitions have a logical order of subject, copula, and predicate. In other words, language implies logic, and logic can be deduced from language. A thing is itself, and it can not be its opposite. God identifies Himself saying: I am that I am (Exodus 3:14). This is the law of identity: a is a. So, God is logical, not insane. And if you agree that God is logical, then you should not object to saying that God is logic. No one gets upset when we say God is good. Goodness is an attribute of God, and so is logic. Therefore, it is perfectly o.k. to translate the word logos in John 1:1 to mean word, logic, or even doctrine.

As for your opinion of my "misleading" by "leaps" of translation, I simply invite your input. Please feel free to correct me by putting up your own take on the verses I have used. I welcome the criticism.

Thanks for your post.
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

You have made no significant case at all that your view of Eph 1:11 is scriptural. Interestingly, you have yet made no comments on my rather detailed argument that indeed Eph 1:11 can be interpreted another way. If my argument does not establish the plausibility of this other interpretation, why not attack that argument rather than creating a misleading issue out of the Sola Scriptura issue?

You yourself have stated that the laws of logic can be deduced from Scripture. And you yourself have made "logical" arguments. On what basis do you believe that your logic is more scripturally informed than mine? Please be specific.

Drew,
I enumerated a list of verses from the Old and New Testaments which not only develop a proper context, but clearly demonstrate that my interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 is correct. This is why you choose not to mention my proofs for Ephesians 1:11. You see Calvinism uses a principle known as "the analogy of faith". We interpret Scripture with Scripture. This is why I gave the list of verses supporting my take on the verse in Ephesians. I showed that God determines the smallest of actions, the greatest of actions, and all actions in between. You claim that because you can imagine a different view of Ephesians 1:11 this means I have a flaw, but you can not prove your different view from Scripture and this is why you site no other verses. I have proved my view. So, in case you were asleep when I listed my support here it is again:

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


1)
"The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord" Proverbs 16:1.
Here we see God determines not only man's thoughts, but his vocal remarks. Notice there is not one mention of a "free" will.

2)
"The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will" Proverbs 21:1.
Notice that here it is clearly implied that God determines the very will of the King. The King's mind is said to be in the very hand of God. This colorful language demonstrates the complete control God has over the mind of man. How do you like the Holy Spirit's analogy? The mind of the king is compared to a river which God can turn as He pleases.

3)
"He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal subtilly with His servants" Psalm 105:25.
Here we see the Psalmist declare that God determined the minds of the Egyptians to hate the children of Abraham. Not one word of "free" will. God governs all His creatures and all their actions.

4)
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows" Matthew 10:29-31.
Here we see Christ declare by implication that not even a small sparrow can fall to the earth without God's determinate counsel. From this our Lord argues from the lesser to the greater when He infers that just as the destiny of a simple sparrow is determined by God, so too is the destiny of man, who is far more important than many sparrows. This is why man need not fear when confessing Christ before God's enemies. No enemy can harm us unless the Sovereign God of the universe has decreed it. Therefore, Christ is teaching that God's determinate counsel is the basis of our comfort. For those of you who have access to the Heidelberg Catechism, then you might wish to read the first question and answer of that great catechism. It wonderfully communicates this idea.

See how simple that is.

Red Beetle

 

[stranger]

Stranger, please define “evil†so that we can discuss it from a common meaning. For instance, is “evil†created?

Hi JM,

I am content to speak of 'evil' as 'sin nature' from which 'works' arise consistent with the propensity of that nature. eg. Gen 6:5

Evil (ie the evil nature) is not created by God. In the case of Jacob and Easu - and the illustration Paul uses of the potter - shaping his vessels - the vessels are made from the same existing lump. Again I am distinguishing between create and make.

blessings: stranger

 

[Guest]

I believe that the Scriptures teach that man has a degree of free will and that God's sovereignty is one where his purposes are met even though man's will is at least partially free.

Its about time you admit to a doctrine of "free" will. Like I have already shown earlier, if you hold to the authority of Scriptures, yet deny God's absolute determination of the will of man, then you necessarily imply man's "free" will.

This means, as I have said more than once here, that you are obligated to give Scriptural proof for "free" will. Your recent concession of this previously hidden fact does not prevent me from pointing out the obvious: "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you" 1 Peter 3:15.

You have continually begged the question when it comes to demonstrating "free" will. But I'm sure you will be giving us a plethora of indicative verses which teach the "free" will of man apart from Almighty God.

You and your buddy are fussing about your own interpretation to Ephesians 1:11, but you have not deduced your meaning from this verse. You have given no Scriptural support. You attempt to form an entire doctrine on one verse with no other Scriptural support. You read your meaning into this one verse. You claim that God has determined events only in sets, but where is the Scripture to support this reading of Eph. 1:11? A possibility of a different interpretation is not a different interpretation. I have already given verses which contradict this so-called interpretation. You have given none. Because you have none. You are doing eisegesis, not exegesis.

Finally, claiming that the Bible is authoritative is not the same as claiming that the Bible alone is authoritative. Seeing the amount of deception you have engaged in up to this point, I would not be surprised if you have a Roman Catholic position on the Scripture.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[stranger]

Of course God loved Adam, he was elected by God.

If you would like to bring up the notion that God is the "author of evil", then you should start by defining that phrase. But, it sounds like a good discussion to me.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

Red Beetle,

see post to JM.

What I said was that arguments have to be worded carefully - or . . . inadvertently - God is made out to be the author of evil.

You said: Of course God loved Adam, he was elected by God.
I said: God created Adam whom He loves.

In an early post to JM I listed another pair of statements:

You said earlier: God created people He did not love.
I said earlier: God created Adam whom He loves.

It is the word created that is important - hence the ensuing discussion about the author of evil.

If God created people that he does not love then I ask:

At which point did God create them?

We know that everything was created in six days and God rested on the seventh day. At this point God saw what He made and pronounced it very good. Insofar as the existing creation is concerned it was finished. You will find that the word create has to be used carefully.

blessings: stranger

 

[JM]

Why would the Lord need to be long suffering in delaying His return? The elect are saved already. Any reprobate, by your view, are only reprobate because they are not elect. What is the criteria for electing some and leaving the rest in the dark? How does one have assurance in salvation?

The Lord is delaying His return because He has yet to gather all of His elect, changing their hearts of stone to hearts of flesh. As for criteria, "...that the purpose of God according to election might stand..." That's it. There's nothing else we know of, God elects according to His purpose. The assurance question would get us too far off topic, but if you scan all the "loose" your salvation threads you'll find something.

~JM~

 

[JM]

Hi JM,

I am content to speak of 'evil' as 'sin nature' from which 'works' arise consistent with the propensity of that nature. eg. Gen 6:5

Evil (ie the evil nature) is not created by God. In the case of Jacob and Easu - and the illustration Paul uses of the potter - shaping his vessels - the vessels are made from the same existing lump. Again I am distinguishing between create and make.

blessings: stranger

My next question would be, was God shocked by the fall, did God know the fall was going to happen? How did God know? [Then I'll get back to how you defined evil.]

~JM~

 

[Drew]

All:

Too busy to respond right now. Hope to get back to things soon.

Blessings to you all