I am honestly fed up with this heresy...

[Jon_]

Therefore, private opinions on what the Word ought or might be saying have no weight. The proper question is, "what does the Word actually say?" And before someone tells me that what I teach is only my interpretation, I will point out that my teaching is built upon that of the Bible. What I say is what it says, without personal adornment (except in such cases as reasonable inferences are drawn, and then only when such are clearly noted) and is backed by the scholarship of hundreds of years of the divines.

This is a great point here, one that is frequently under-emphasized or overlooked. The objection, "That's just your interpretation (or opinion)" is about as useless as saying, "Nuh-uh!!!" and sticking your tongue out.

Simply because someone draws a conclusion we don't like doesn't make it automatically wrong. I know that's a little difficult to understand in the context of modern secular hedonism, but how something makes us feel is irrelevant as to its true worth. As Christians, we are called to be apart from the world and to live according to the Word, the only rule of faith and practice for them who profess Christ. As such, it does not help anyone to simply reject something out of hand because "It's just his opinion."

The real question, as brother Moore pointed out, is whether or not it is the opinion of the Bible. We must test our arguments, our "opinions," against the text of the Scriptures. If you believe that someone is not representing the Word accurately, then provide verses that refute his position, or show where his logic breaks down. Don't just simply write it off as his own interpretation. If the inference is valid, then that is what the Scripture says. This is why it is so very important follow the rules of logic. If you are not speaking logically, you are speaking nonsense. If you are not making a valid inference from Scripture, you are distorting the texts. This is why we examine the arguments of people who claim to be interpreting the Word. We want to make sure that what they are inferring is a valid and necessary conclusion given the premises provided in the Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[vangelicmonk]

The only thing we can know conclusively is essentials. The distinctives will always be questionable. I actually will be posting some questions concerning some conclusions in Calvinism, but this isn't the place to do it. What I am saying in general is that the evidence of a conclusion in a distinctive is never going to be 100% like an essential.


For example, I can say that I am more than 50% sure one does not need to be Baptised to be saved. I can't make that conclusion 100%, but for the most part I believe it to be a symbol of salvation. Nevertheless, I do see in scripture that it should be done as soon as possible after one has given his life to the Lord as a first form of obedience. Nevertheless, I would not say that my view is 100%, because those of view the regeneration of baptism make some good points, but I think those points fall short taken in light of all of scripture. I wouldn't state that my view is airtight, but I'm comfortable with my view in light of what I have studied in scripture and what scripture says. It is the same thing with my view of soteriology.

Everyone is going to have their proof texts. The proof texts on distinctives are for the most part vauge and cannot support a distinctive 100%. We cannot use vauge proof texts to interpret other vauge proof texts. Those that hold up the essentials are the texts upon which are the mold that form other texts and not vauge distinctive texts that form or mold essential texts. I'm not saying any scripture or the word is wrong at ALL, but I do state that distinctives are taught (by God's will) to be not 100% clear, but He has made clear the essentials. There is only one answer to all distinctives and we will find out that final answer when we are before God, but until that time He has allowed the essentials to be clear and the distinctives to be vauge. We can argue them, but we have been arguing about them for hundreds of years and are no more close to a 100% clear view then before.

Some will say they have the 100 % clear view like this guy:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/

and this guy: http://www.atruechurch.info/

but they are boaderline if not actually heretical and cultish.

Sure we can be logical, but any debate on distinctive is still going to be using proof texts that are not 100% clear. "The chain of an argument is no stronger than its weakest link." No distinctive will ever be 100% air tight and if it is then make it an essential and put everyone else outside of orthodoxy that doesn't meet your essentials. I would not fellowship (in a Christian fashion) with someone who is outside of orthdoxy, because I would not look upon them as my brother or sister in Christ. I would treat them as an unbeliever and I guess thats why some Calvinists treat uncalvinists as unbelievers. However, they should just state what they think up front and witness to us like unregenerates some think us to be.

 

[Jon_]

The only thing we can know conclusively is essentials.

Is this statement essential? If so, how do you know? If it's not essential, then it follows we cannot know that only essentials are knowable conclusively. I'm sorry, but you have no basis whatever for making this assertion. It is certainly not biblical.

The distinctives will always be questionable.

Everything is always questionable. The more ignorant or impious the person, the more likely he is to question. The former is understandable, the latter is nothing more than a religious skepticism that accompanies unbelief.

I actually will be posting some questions concerning some conclusions in Calvinism, but this isn't the place to do it.

That's great. We have a subforum (Ask a Calvinist) for these specific types of inquiries.

What I am saying in general is that the evidence of a conclusion in a distinctive is never going to be 100% like an essential.

The "evidence" of a "distinctive" (you might want to define your terms) is the same "evidence" as an "essential": The Bible. If you say the biblical evidence of a "distinctive" is insufficient, then that begs the question of what sufficient evidence is for an "essential." Moreover, your assertion of the universal negative that a "distinctive" is never 100% conclusive is itself a statement that cannot be proven.

Your argument falls apart completely.

For example, I can say that I am more than 50% sure one does not need to be Baptised to be saved.

Nice hypothetical, but please show me how you arrived at that probability.

I can't make that conclusion 100%, but for the most part I believe it to be a symbol of salvation. Nevertheless, I do see in scripture that it should be done as soon as possible after one has given his life to the Lord as a first form of obedience. Nevertheless, I would not say that my view is 100%, because those of view the regeneration of baptism make some good points, but I think those points fall short taken in light of all of scripture. I wouldn't state that my view is airtight, but I'm comfortable with my view in light of what I have studied in scripture and what scripture says. It is the same thing with my view of soteriology.

So, because you aren't completely confident on your view of baptism and soteriology, it follows that these are "distinctives" that cannot be proven, and that this follows for everyone? This is a terrible example.

Everyone is going to have their proof texts. The proof texts on distinctives are for the most part vauge and cannot support a distinctive 100%.

What!? Cite specifics. This is a sweeping, baseless assertion with nothing given as support. This isn't true at all, it's just how you feel. Give me some specific examples of "distinctives" that are proven from "vague" verses that "cannot support a distinctive." And for crying out loud, define "distinctive."

We cannot use vauge proof texts to interpret other vauge proof texts.

Says who? You have no support for this, it's nothing more than another baseless assertion. Do you deny that all Scriptures carry a univocal element? If so, then they can always be applied to other verses with similar meanings. If not, then you deny the Bible is the word of God.

Those that hold up the essentials are the texts upon which are the mold that form other texts and not vauge distinctive texts that form or mold essential texts. I'm not saying any scripture or the word is wrong at ALL, but I do state that distinctives are taught (by God's will) to be not 100% clear, but He has made clear the essentials. There is only one answer to all distinctives and we will find out that final answer when we are before God, but until that time He has allowed the essentials to be clear and the distinctives to be vauge. We can argue them, but we have been arguing about them for hundreds of years and are no more close to a 100% clear view then before.

So parts of the Bible were given by God to deliberately confuse us? Nice. I suppose you think that 1 Corinthians 14:33 is one of those "vague" verses, right?

Some will say they have the 100 % clear view like this guy:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/

Marc Carpenter is so out of whack in his teaching that it truly surprises me that anyone listens to him. He has a heterodoxy hall of shame that includes John Calvin, C. H. Spurgeon, and A. W. Pink. I mean, you've got to be kidding me. The guy is just ridiculous.

and this guy: http://www.atruechurch.info/

but they are boaderline if not actually heretical and cultish.

Carpenter is certainly unbiblical, but Darwin Fish and his maniacal followers are definitely a cult.

Sure we can be logical, but any debate on distinctive is still going to be using proof texts that are not 100% clear.

More baseless assertions. You might be somewhat believeable if you would at least give an example or two. As it stands, you're just throwing this stuff out hoping someone will agree with you.

"The chain of an argument is no stronger than its weakest link."

This is a fallacy of composition, and hence, this statement is illogical.

No distinctive will ever be 100% air tight and if it is then make it an essential and put everyone else outside of orthodoxy that doesn't meet your essentials.

I think you have a clear misunderstanding of the subject, but it would help if you defined your terms (distinctive and essential, in particular), so I could confirm that.

I would not fellowship (in a Christian fashion) with someone who is outside of orthdoxy, because I would not look upon them as my brother or sister in Christ.

What do you consider orthodoxy? Moreover, why does someone else have to accept your view of orthodoxy? If I say five-point Calvinism is a test of orthodoxy, but that I don't regard someone who is unorthodox as automatically unregenerate or heretical, then why is my position somehow untenable or inferior to yours?

I would treat them as an unbeliever and I guess thats why some Calvinists treat uncalvinists as unbelievers. However, they should just state what they think up front and witness to us like unregenerates some think us to be.

The only Calvinists I have known that regard all non-Calvinists as unregenerate are hyper-Calvinists, which do violence against the label and defame those who subscribe to orthodoxy soteriology.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[vangelicmonk]

This is a fallacy of composition, and hence, this statement is illogical.

There is much in your comment that I want to respond to, but since I have to go to work I can only focus on this one. My statement is based on the fact that a conclusion always follows the weaker premise. For example, if one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative. If one of the premises is a conditional statement, then the conclusion is conditional.

I will post more on your comments after work. God Bless.

 

[vangelicmonk]

The "evidence" of a "distinctive" (you might want to define your terms) is the same "evidence" as an "essential": The Bible. If you say the biblical evidence of a "distinctive" is insufficient, then that begs the question of what sufficient evidence is for an "essential."

Essentials-Those things on which you must believe to be within the pale of orthodoxy. Meaning if you reject an essential you are not in the pale of orthodoxy. Essentials are also those things which are main and plain in scripture and are shown to be thus by the upholding of these essentials through church history in teaching them and stating them in faith statements across all Christian denominations.

Now you can disagree with one of the things I state is an essential, but if you reject it in nature you are outside of orthodoxy. For example you can say “I don't think a belief in angels should be an essential” that’s ok, but if you say "I don't believe in angels" I would consider you outside of orthodoxy. I can't think of any true Christian that would think you are within orthodoxy.

I also don't care how you come to an essential. Whether it be Creed, confession, catechism, or just the clear teaching of scripture. But the essential must be the minimum one must agree with to be in the pale of Orthodoxy.


Orthodoxy- (I will use Robert Bowman's definition)-whatever teachings and practices that are sufficiently faithful to Christian principles that Christians should accept as fellow-Christians those who adhere to them.

Some may claim that Church of Christers and Pentecostals believe that Baptismal Regeneration and Speaking in tongues are essential. If I gave my definition to them about essentials within the Body of Christ I think most of them would not put those things as essential. They are essential to them for someone to be considered in their church (their distinctives of someone who is considered in the Church of Christ or Pentecostal), but not essential for one to be considered a Christian. Now if they did raise their distinctive to an essential (as I define it) within the Body of Christ, then they would exclude everyone who doesn’t accept that essential as being outside the body of Christ. Same thing if you raise Perserverance to be an essential then you are saying I am outside the Body of Christ. You would be doing what so many Calvinists have done in the past, but which is wrong. To raise a distinctive item to an essential that one must believe in to be considered within the body of Christ is to act in a very exclusive and “cultic” manner. I am making an important distinction here. There are essentials to ones denomination or beliefs that are really distinctives one must accept to be in that denomination or school of theology. However, to raise that distinctive as an essential that the body of Christ as a whole should believe in is to cut off many limbs from the body of Christ that are really within the pale of orthodoxy.

Now those who are “oneness Pentecostal” and deny the trinity as stated in the Nicene Creed they are outside the pale of orthodoxy. I don’t consider them within the pale of Orthodoxy as I do not consider Benny Hinn and others who go against essential doctrine to be in the pale of Orthodoxy. This includes Open Theists who deny the Attribute of God and Mormons who deny all scripture is true.

There is NOT going to be agreement with whether they should be essential or not, but they would NOT “deny” them. I think this in itself shows it as a clear teaching and essential. Now if you put there you must believe in Perseverance of the Saints, or Speaking in Tongues, or Keep the Sabbath (Saturday), you would have many Christians in the pale of orthodoxy deny them as absolutely “true”. I can only think of “cultic” and heretical Christians or non-Christians who would deny the “truth” of any essential I have listed.

This is the list of essentials:
The Trinity,
Christs full humanity and diety,
scriptures prefection and inspiration,
Christs Return, Christs Death, buril and ressurection,
our ressurection,
man is fallen in sin and sinfulness,
salvation by faith through grace,
Baptism, God is creator,
The church/Body of Christ,
existence of angels, Demons, the Devil, Heaven, Hell;
The attributes of God,
the Virgin Birth,
Miracles,
Sin,
and the act of prayer and communion.

 

[Jon_]

There is much in your comment that I want to respond to, but since I have to go to work I can only focus on this one. My statement is based on the fact that a conclusion always follows the weaker premise.

True. If the conclusion is valid, it follows from all of premises, a necessity of logic.

For example, if one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative.

Right.

If one of the premises is a conditional statement, then the conclusion is conditional.

Well, all premises are conditional (if ... then), so I'm not sure what you mean here.

The problem with your comment is not that you're wrong about validity, it's that you're attributing the term "strength" to formal arguments. "Strong" and "weak" do not apply to formal arguments. Strong and weak only apply to informal (that is, invalid) arguments. These kinds of arguments are meant to persuade someone of their conclusion even though it is admitted that the conclusion either cannot be proven or is not proven. Neither strong nor weak arguments necessarily follow from their premises. That an argument is strong is simply the subjective opinion of someone as to the persuasiveness of the argument given the premises and conclusion supplied. These kinds of arguments are not formal. (A good example of a strong informal argument would be gravity.)

Formal arguments have three classifications: invalid, valid, and sound. An invalid argument contains a logical fallacy, such as the fallacy of composition that I pointed out above. A valid argument is one that is formally correct. Validity has absolutely nothing to do with premises. An argument can be valid and still be wrong. For instance:

P1) All blue things are cheese.
P2) The moon is blue.
C) Therefore, the moon is cheese.

The premise "all blue things are cheese" is wrong, but this argument is valid. If the premises were correct, then the argument would be sound. Soundness means that the argument is valid and the premises are true. A sound argument is conclusively true beyond the shadow of logical doubt.

Anyway, that is probably more than needed to be said on the issue, and I probably didn't even need to point out that the assertion was illogical, but this is where we ended up, so...

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon