Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
midniterider

Calvinism, Predestination, The Elect

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, florduh said:

Possible answers are: The Bible says so. My preacher says so. My mommy says so. I can feel him. I heard that someone was healed. I heard that someone had a vision. Nobody else knows how we got here. People have died for their belief. Millions of people can't be wrong. I've seen things I can't explain. Look at the sunset!!! But mainly, the Bible says so.

But you forgot one of the more common ones I come across: God is real and the Bible is the Truth because *I* say so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     The simple answer (I'm going to just give this a gloss) is that first we presuppose there is a god.  We need to do this because all things flow from god.  Then using things like logic and reason (which flow from this god) we can analyze things like nature and various texts that exist for truth.  Once we do this we can see that the only set of texts that align with truth are those set forth in the bible.  All other things fail even though they may appear to contain truth (or may well even contain some truth).  But if we fail to make these presuppositions we will come to error.  The only thing we really need to presuppose is there is a god and go from there.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mwc said:

     The simple answer (I'm going to just give this a gloss) is that first we presuppose there is a god.  We need to do this because all things flow from god.  Then using things like logic and reason (which flow from this god) we can analyze things like nature and various texts that exist for truth.  Once we do this we can see that the only set of texts that align with truth are those set forth in the bible.  All other things fail even though they may appear to contain truth (or may well even contain some truth).  But if we fail to make these presuppositions we will come to error.  The only thing we really need to presuppose is there is a god and go from there.

 

          mwc

 

 

The bolded is not apparent though, and efforts to demonstrate it basically amount to "believe this book" in my experience. It gets dressed up a bit,  but that's the essence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

The bolded is not apparent though, and efforts to demonstrate it basically amount to "believe this book" in my experience. It gets dressed up a bit,  but that's the essence.

     It is once you do everything correctly.  If you come to another conclusion then something went awry somewhere along the line.  Go back to step one and start over.  The book is merely evidence for god.  A number of books may make this claim but when tested they don't actually pan out.  So you need to believe that there is a god and then you'll see that the evidence is there.  If you don't start out correctly you'll never see anything.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And inaccurate.  

Ignoring the rest. Typical. Poppies...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

In a nut shell, yes. 

 

Because asking someone to believe in an unsubstantiated claim such as "The bible is absolutely true," boils down to just that.

 

It doesn't matter how elaborate the apologetic's. Nor the several thousand year history of christian theology. It doesn't matter how high you've built your fallacious claims with sophisticated and / or highly credentialed theology. The foundation level is the concern here. And a faulty foundation (as you should know) results in the big castle being built upon sand. A little water at the base of the elaborate structure and the whole enterprise comes crashing down!!!

 

Razed to the floor.....

 

You have nothing other than, "Believe this book," and believers have nothing other than, "Duhhh, ok."

 

I'm really saddened that you said this, Josh. A reductio ad absurdum which generally desires that a person see his error. But no...you double down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mwc said:

     It is once you do everything correctly.  If you come to another conclusion then something went awry somewhere along the line.  Go back to step one and start over.  The book is merely evidence for god.  A number of books may make this claim but when tested they don't actually pan out.  So you need to believe that there is a god and then you'll see that the evidence is there.  If you don't start out correctly you'll never see anything.

 

          mwc

 

And to @disillusioned...

May I ask, when have either of you knowing and purposely engaged with a declared PA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Ignoring the rest. Typical. Poppies...

 

 

This presupposes that I never studied the rest.  I did.  But having seen the glaring inaccuracies, I have no compelling reason to accept the few bits that are accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

 

The bolded is not apparent though, and efforts to demonstrate it basically amount to "believe this book" in my experience. It gets dressed up a bit,  but that's the essence.

I think it's more than that.  It seems to me that it is "believe this book at all costs".  So much so that you have to find a "biblical" explanation for everything.  The example that comes to mind is the Hovindian explanation of speciation using "kinds" of animals described in the Noahic flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

And to @disillusioned...

May I ask, when have either of you knowing and purposely engaged with a declared PA?

     If I'm oversimplifying this too much (as I pretty much said when I started that this was going to be as much and essentially a giant gloss) then feel free to take over.  I would much rather defer to you then go on myself.  By all means go back and correct everything I've said so far and expand fully on it.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think it's more than that.  It seems to me that it is "believe this book at all costs".  So much so that you have to find a "biblical" explanation for everything.  The example that comes to mind is the Hovindian explanation of speciation using "kinds" of animals described in the Noahic flood.

Eh? "a "biblical" explanation for everything."?

There is no biblical explanation for the workings of, let's say, the internal combustion engine. How does flight occur? 

A biblical explanation for man to function rightly in the world? You bet.

 

DOH!!!! I forget....I can't use the word "rightly" here. It doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mwc said:

     If I'm oversimplifying this too much (as I pretty much said when I started that this was going to be as much and essentially a giant gloss) then feel free to take over.  I would much rather defer to you then go on myself.  By all means go back and correct everything I've said so far and expand fully on it.

 

          mwc

 

Well then let me be crystal clear as well.

Please, just for the record, would you be so kind as to state exactly  with whom you have you engaged as a declared PA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Well then let me be crystal clear as well.

Please, just for the record, would you be so kind as to state exactly  with whom you have you engaged as a declared PA?

     What?  Like name names from my past?  That's a big ask for an online forum don't you think?

 

     I'll say that I've had teachers that asserted such beliefs and leave it at that.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mwc said:

     What?  Like name names from my past?  That's a big ask for an online forum don't you think?

 

     I'll say that I've had teachers that asserted such beliefs and leave it at that.

 

          mwc

 

"Asserted such..."

Anyone can attempt to wade back through years of "assertion" and come up empty. I'm not asking for that.

 

It is being implied that PA is instantly recognizable and has been addressed e.g.

9 hours ago, mwc said:

     The simple answer (I'm going to just give this a gloss) is that first we presuppose there is a god.  We need to do this because all things flow from god.  Then using things like logic and reason (which flow from this god) we can analyze things like nature and various texts that exist for truth.  Once we do this we can see that the only set of texts that align with truth are those set forth in the bible.  All other things fail even though they may appear to contain truth (or may well even contain some truth).  But if we fail to make these presuppositions we will come to error.  The only thing we really need to presuppose is there is a god and go from there.

 

          mwc

 

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

The bolded is not apparent though, and efforts to demonstrate it basically amount to "believe this book" in my experience. It gets dressed up a bit,  but that's the essence.

This is NOT "the essence" but that's where y'all congratulate yourselves and leave it thinking you've put it to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the essence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

A biblical explanation for man to function rightly in the world? You bet.

Just not one that you are capable of demonstrating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

And to @disillusioned...

May I ask, when have either of you knowing and purposely engaged with a declared PA?

 

Well, both my parents are pastors who tend towards presuppositionalism, so there's that...

 

Like mwc, I'm not going to give you actual names of people I know who are presuppositionalists, but I know and have known quite a few. I am aware of what I'm speaking here. You seem to like very much to pretend as if no one but you has any inkling about, well, anything, but you don't seem inclined to actually present anything substantive in support of this pretense. 

 

If my claim that the arguments boil down to "believe this book (or else, as RNP would have it)" is incorrect then prove me wrong. Give me an argument which I can't reduce to that. Or don't, but then realize that if you keep talking you look pretty silly.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mwc said:

     It is once you do everything correctly.  If you come to another conclusion then something went awry somewhere along the line.  Go back to step one and start over.  The book is merely evidence for god.  A number of books may make this claim but when tested they don't actually pan out.  So you need to believe that there is a god and then you'll see that the evidence is there.  If you don't start out correctly you'll never see anything.

 

          mwc

 

 

Yes, I understand that this is an argument that is commonly made,  but it isn't a good one. It amounts to begging the question.

 

The answer to the question "how do you know the Bible to be true" is "to know the Bible to be true, you must presuppose God", but not only that, you must also reason "correctly", whatever that means. I could easily assert that if you do everything "correctly" you'll arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is false, even with the presupposition of God. But I suppose that could be countered by saying that one's presupposition of God is flawed. It does seem to me though that you have to also presuppose the "correctness" of your reasoning,  although I suppose that this could be seen as flowing from, or as an aspect of, the original presupposition. But in either case, you have now basically just presupposed the Bible's truth. Hence, "believe this book".

 

The statements "The Christian God exists" and "The Bible is true" are roughly equivalent logically. One can't be true without the other. If the Christian God exists, then the Bible is true, otherwise it wouldn't be the Christian God that exists. And if the Bible is true, then the Christian God exists because the Bible makes that claim. But this means that to assume one of these statements is simply to assume the other. Again, "believe this book".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hazard the guess that both Luth-ifer and christfuckems would say that it is not enough to "believe this book" per se. One must believe the correct interpretation of the correct translation of the book.  This, despite neither of them being able to demonstrate which is correct or explain why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

 

Well, both my parents are pastors who tend towards presuppositionalism, so there's that...

 

Like mwc, I'm not going to give you actual names of people I know who are presuppositionalists, but I know and have known quite a few. I am aware of what I'm speaking here. You seem to like very much to pretend as if no one but you has any inkling about, well, anything, but you don't seem inclined to actually present anything substantive in support of this pretense. 

 

If my claim that the arguments boil down to "believe this book (or else, as RNP would have it)" is incorrect then prove me wrong. Give me an argument which I can't reduce to that. Or don't, but then realize that if you keep talking you look pretty silly.

Very good. What I think is fair and courteous, though, is to have a person explain to me how they understand a particular thing before I launch into my own. Why cover ground that's already been covered? But that's the premise  here. You've seen it all; done it all; got the Tshirt AND the degree. Yet when pressed...mmmmm.

 

I say this in light of the vast record of history that is available to us all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I'm really saddened that you said this, Josh. A reductio ad absurdum which generally desires that a person see his error. But no...you double down.

 

There's no error so far. You haven't countered me or any of the others here making the same assertion. You keep saying we're wrong, and then failing to demonstrate your assertion that we have it wrong: 

 

42 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

The answer to the question "how do you know the Bible to be true" is "to know the Bible to be true, you must presuppose God", but not only that, you must also reason "correctly", whatever that means. I could easily assert that if you do everything "correctly" you'll arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is false, even with the presupposition of God. But I suppose that could be countered by saying that one's presupposition of God is flawed. It does seem to me though that you have to also presuppose the "correctness" of your reasoning,  although I suppose that this could be seen as flowing from, or as an aspect of, the original presupposition. But in either case, you have now basically just presupposed the Bible's truth. Hence, "believe this book".

 

The statements "The Christian God exists" and "The Bible is true" are roughly equivalent logically. One can't be true without the other. If the Christian God exists, then the Bible is true, otherwise it wouldn't be the Christian God that exists. And if the Bible is true, then the Christian God exists because the Bible makes that claim. But this means that to assume one of these statements is simply to assume the other. Again, "believe this book".

 

If you suggest that someone believe the bible, that's it. It all boils down to what we've outlined several times now. And you have no refutation so far. Saying that we just don't know or just don't understand is NOT a refutation. 

 

22 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'd hazard the guess that both Luth-ifer and christfuckems would say that it is not enough to "believe this book" per se. One must believe the correct interpretation of the correct translation of the book.  This, despite neither of them being able to demonstrate which is correct or explain why.

 

And yet, even that necessarily boils down to a foundation of "believe this book." A more refined rendition where the person has to penetrate layers of the said book in order to qualify as "really believing this book." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Very good. What I think is fair and courteous, though, is to have a person explain to me how they understand a particular thing before I launch into my own. Why cover ground that's already been covered? But that's the premise  here. You've seen it all; done it all; got the Tshirt AND the degree. Yet when pressed...mmmmm.

 

I say this in light of the vast record of history that is available to us all. 

 

See, this is how conversations die. Why should I explain my understanding to you before you explain yours to me? Why isn't it courteous for you to go first? Even here, you assume implicitly you're right and I'm wrong. If you are to instruct me in the correct view,  I should first describe my flawed views. Does that about cover it?

 

But here's the really important thing: it's your faith that makes specific, strong, absurd truth claims. It's on you to defend these, not on me to explain my current understanding of them. Where I make claims, I'm happy to defend them. Why can't you do the same?

 

And no, I have not seen it all and done it all. Not by a long stretch. But one thing I have seen before is a Christian who is actually willing to attempt to defend his or her faith. Just not in this thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

And no, I have not seen it all and done it all.

Collectively, yes, you all have.

 

20 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

See, this is how conversations die. Why should I explain my understanding to you before you explain yours to me?

You do so inadvertently but that leads to asking for clarification. How / why should I attempt to counter vagaries?

 

24 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

But here's the really important thing: it's your faith that makes specific, strong, absurd truth claims. It's on you to defend these, not on me to explain my current understanding of them.

I'm not asking about truth claims. "Faith" is not required to address PA which is the subject matter right now. There's no inherent "absurd truth claims" in PA being an approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LuthAMF said:

 

I'm not asking about truth claims. "Faith" is not required to address PA which is the subject matter right now. There's no inherent "absurd truth claims" in PA being an approach. 

 

See above. PA begs the question, and boils down to "believe this book". For the final time, prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luth-ifer:  your understanding is flawed.

 

Ex-c Chorus:  tell us how our understanding is flawed.

 

Luth-ifer:  tell me what your understanding is first.

 

Ex-c Chorus:  tell us how our understanding is flawed. 

 

Luth-ifer:  why should I answer vagaries?

 

Ex-c Chorus:  tell us the correct understanding, then.

 

Luth-ifer:  no, I asked you first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.