Predestination: Concept or Doctrine

[Van]

Twaddle refers to silly arguments. Sort of like the Princes Bride, I know that you know that I know that you know that I know what you are thinking, and then the know-it-all drinks the poison, not realizing both sides were poison. Epistemic twaddle. It is your one idea, your only idea and demonstrates a devotion to the obvious.

However what seems to be missing in your argumentation is the application of your views on your own posts. Your mistaken inference that I was asserting an infallable understanding of God' word, and then was claiming I could discern the plain meaning without feedback of others who had studied the same passage demonstrates that your presumptions color your understanding.

Therefore you assert based on your bogus inferences, that I should retract assertions I never made. In short, your posts prove that some folks are unable to comprehend what others are saying because of their warped one sided assessment capabilities. Sort of like folks blinded by their love of darkness.

But since you believe in the Nicene Creed, my inference is that your arguments are twaddle. We share an understanding of the plain meaning of many passages.

 

[cygnusx1]

Twaddle refers to silly arguments. Sort of like the Princes Bride, I know that you know that I know that you know that I know what you are thinking, and then the know-it-all drinks the poison, not realizing both sides were poison. Epistemic twaddle. It is your one idea, your only idea and demonstrates a devotion to the obvious.

However what seems to be missing in your argumentation is the application of your views on your own posts. Your mistaken inference that I was asserting an infallable understanding of God' word, and then was claiming I could discern the plain meaning without feedback of others who had studied the same passage demonstrates that your presumptions color your understanding.

Therefore you assert based on your bogus inferences, that I should retract assertions I never made. In short, your posts prove that some folks are unable to comprehend what others are saying because of their warped one sided assessment capabilities. Sort of like folks blinded by their love of darkness.

But since you believe in the Nicene Creed, my inference is that your arguments are twaddle. We share an understanding of the plain meaning of many passages.

Van what you have said makes a lot of sense , at least to me , it is very difficult , if not impossible having any discussion when some person takes great delight in looking for objections , especially if they are "bogus inferences" , it NEVER HELPS MATTERS WHEN a person sees something they think they can trump by sophisticated sounding rhetoric , but are forever neglecting to say just what is the truth (as they see it) ......

If I disagree with you at least I ought to be able to give solid (Biblical) reasons why .

Also it should be kept in mind that some have placed a gap between what scripture says and what we today can understand ....... this gap is covenient for dancing around trouncing anyone who says anything remotely assured , while at the same time saying NOTHING!

God Bless you van!

 

[holdon]

Van what you have said makes a lot of sense , at least to me , it is very difficult , if not impossible having any discussion when some person takes great delight in looking for objections , especially if they are "bogus inferences" , it NEVER HELPS MATTERS WHEN a person sees something they think they can trump by sophisticated sounding rhetoric , but are forever neglecting to say just what is the truth (as they see it) ......

If I disagree with you at least I ought to be able to give solid (Biblical) reasons why .

Also it should be kept in mind that some have placed a gap between what scripture says and what we today can understand ....... this gap is covenient for dancing around trouncing anyone who says anything remotely assured , while at the same time saying NOTHING!

God Bless you van!

So, what exactly where you saying here?

What has all this to do with the subject?

 

[Van]

cygnusx1, thanks. I think you have not only understood what I was trying to say, but have shown your understanding by providing solid applications.

 

[depthdeception]

Twaddle refers to silly arguments. Sort of like the Princes Bride, I know that you know that I know that you know that I know what you are thinking, and then the know-it-all drinks the poison, not realizing both sides were poison. Epistemic twaddle. It is your one idea, your only idea and demonstrates a devotion to the obvious.

Then why have not consistently applied this to your own submissions on this thread?

However what seems to be missing in your argumentation is the application of your views on your own posts. Your mistaken inference that I was asserting an infallable understanding of God' word, and then was claiming I could discern the plain meaning without feedback of others who had studied the same passage demonstrates that your presumptions color your understanding.

I have never--and will never--deny that my "understanding" is colored by my presuppositions, etc. However, this has very little to do with the content of your post which I have been critiquing. As usual, you are diverting attention from the deficiencies of your own position.

Therefore you assert based on your bogus inferences, that I should retract assertions I never made.

But you have made them, and I have sufficiently shown this. If you cannot recognize the natural conclusions of your own positions, the fault is yours, not mine.

In short, your posts prove that some folks are unable to comprehend what others are saying because of their warped one sided assessment capabilities.

Thank you. This has been the point I have been making throughout my entire interaction with you. Finally you have "gotten" it.

But since you believe in the Nicene Creed, my inference is that your arguments are twaddle.

It might be, but you have yet to sufficiently show why this would be. As I said before, I believe in the Nicene Creed not b/c I believe that it is an explication of the "plain meaning of Scripture", but rather b/c I submit myself to the authority of the historic Church in this matter. You equalizing of my beliefs with yours is based upon your biased belief that the authority of the Nicene Creed must necessarily rest on its equivalence with the supposed "plain meaning" of Scripture. I reject this presupposition, and am offended that you would presume to equate your presuppositions with those of my own.

We share an understanding of the plain meaning of many passages.

I really doubt that.

 

[Van]

But you have made them, and I have sufficiently shown this. If you cannot recognize the natural conclusions of your own positions, the fault is yours, not mine.

Oh I see you have presented the perfect understanding of my posts. Give me a break. Using your view, you cannot accurately make any inferences concerning my post. And any inferences you make are unnatural, coloring my post with your bogus inferences. In order to be natural, they would need to reflect my thinking, and your point is that you are unable to do that.
I did not say nor imply what you have inferred.

Lets review, you believe the Nicene Creed, not because it reflects the Word of God but because you submit yourself to the authority of the Church. But if the Church does not represent the word of God in its teachings, then it has no authority. Therefore, since you accept the authority of the Church, you accept their understanding of the word of God.

 

[Van]

By the way, the point you have been making is the only point you ever make. Give it a rest.

 

[Van]

Usually when someone mentions "predestination" they do not have the biblical concept in mind, but rather the Reformed doctrine. The concept is that no plan of God can be thwarted, thus what God purposes and plans is predestined to occur. Thus the concept can be applied to any prophecy, for when God promises something, He fulfills it, He causes it to happen. Take Christ dying on the cross. According to 1 Peter 1:19-20, God knew before the foundation of the world, hence before creation, that Christ would shed His blood as a Lamb. This meshes well with Peter's words in Acts 2:23 which say Jesus the Nararene was "delivered over by the predestined plan and foreknowledge of God...." So Christ's death, his shedding of blood, was God's plan from before the creation. So while the Jews conspired and the Romans drove the nails, no one took Christ's life, He laid it down because of the command of His Father, John 10:18. Behold the Lamb of God...

 

[depthdeception]

Oh I see you have presented the perfect understanding of my posts. Give me a break. Using your view, you cannot accurately make any inferences concerning my post. And any inferences you make are unnatural, coloring my post with your bogus inferences. In order to be natural, they would need to reflect my thinking, and your point is that you are unable to do that.
I did not say nor imply what you have inferred.

As language is an imperfect and unreliable mode of communication, you also cannot know that what you have "said" is what you meant to "say."

Lets review, you believe the Nicene Creed, not because it reflects the Word of God but because you submit yourself to the authority of the Church.

I never said that. I said I accept the Nicene Creed because of the authority of Church, not because it accurately reflects some supposed "plain meaning" of the Scriptures. Obviously, you are incapable of seeing the difference.

But if the Church does not represent the word of God in its
teachings, then it has no authority.

Pure opinion.

Therefore, since you accept the authority of the Church, you accept their understanding of the word of God.

Only in light of your presuppositions.

 

[depthdeception]

By the way, the point you have been making is the only point you ever make. Give it a rest.

Why? Too challenging to your presuppositions?

 

[holdon]

Usually when someone mentions "predestination" they do not have the biblical concept in mind, but rather the Reformed doctrine.

Are you saying the biblical concept is different from the Reformed doctrine? How?

 

[Van]

As language is an imperfect and unreliable mode of communication, you also cannot know that what you have "said" is what you meant to "say."

And if we reverse this twaddle, you cannot know what you are saying, and therefore condemning yourself to a cell of ignorance. Epistiemic twaddle. As I have said, this fallacy never applies the argument inward, only outward as in nobody else knows anything. Twaddle to the max.

 

[Van]

Holdon, you asked a question concerning why the biblical view teaches general redemption, general reconciliation when the finished work of the cross is in view, and particular redemption, particular reconciliation, when individual salvation by grace through faith is in view. Do you understand my point of view?

 

[depthdeception]

And if we reverse this twaddle, you cannot know what you are saying, and therefore condemning yourself to a cell of ignorance. Epistiemic twaddle. As I have said, this fallacy never applies the argument inward, only outward as in nobody else knows anything. Twaddle to the max.

I didn't say you couldn't know what you were saying--I said (and apparently you missed this...) that you--including me--are incapable of knowing exactly how what we say will be communicated to others. Just because you intend to say "X" does not guarantee that I or someone else will interpret what you say as "X."

And for the sake of the english language, why don't you come up with another comeback more clever and creative than "twaddle"--we all get that this is your favorite word...

 

[holdon]

Holdon, you asked a question concerning why the biblical view teaches general redemption, general reconciliation when the finished work of the cross is in view, and particular redemption, particular reconciliation, when individual salvation by grace through faith is in view. Do you understand my point of view?

I think this was in the other thread. Probably better to keep the discussion there. But no, I don't understand the need from a biblical standpoint to distinguish between "general" and "particular" The bible provides simply a better basis: different words.
By the way "reconciliation" is not part of that.

 

[Van]

Yes, I confused the threads. So no need to discuss particular redemption here.

 

[Van]

Twaddle is a good word, would you prefer sophmoric? For example in one post you say I understand your point and in another subsequent post you assert that your view is too difficult for me to grasp. How about sophmoric twaddle?

 

[Van]

Are you saying the biblical concept is different from the Reformed doctrine? How?

Read the OP and see if you can answer the question.

 

[holdon]

Read the OP and see if you can answer the question.

I reread the OP per your request. And what you "propose" as the biblical concept is in my view no different from the RT doctine. Maybe you can explain further if I am mistaken on that.

You have come to the conclusion that God set up the Fall. Just like RT does.
RT'ers like to say that redemption was no "after thought".

To which I reply that premeditated murder of millions in the lake of fire is morally much more reprehensible and inconceivable of God. Because if God predestined men, through whatever means, to that ultimate fate, than He is evil...

 

[cygnusx1]

I reread the OP per your request. And what you "propose" as the biblical concept is in my view no different from the RT doctine. Maybe you can explain further if I am mistaken on that.

You have come to the conclusion that God set up the Fall. Just like RT does.
RT'ers like to say that redemption was no "after thought".

To which I reply that premeditated murder of millions in the lake of fire is morally much more reprehensible and inconceivable of God. Because if God predestined men, through whatever means, to that ultimate fate, than He is evil...

and so I take it that you think Christ was an after thought , that God was taken by surprise , and that He didn't know Adam would fall until after the event ?

not necessarily , was it evil of God to destroy millions in the flood , in fact whatever God does is good , and I suppose what we have here is a denial that God makes man without a purpose , I notice you have not only rejected fatalism (good) but you also have rejected Biblicism , by saying "Because if God predestined men, through whatever means , then He is evil ..... "

so here you are saying that even if God purposed to destroy man on account of man's sin (which is the means of condemnation) it is still wrong!

but what does scripture say .......

Rom 3:5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
Rom 3:6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?