Predestination: Concept or Doctrine

[Van]

This is not what I advocate. I have only suggested that we cannot "know" anything in the absolute, objective sense that modernism sought. We can only know from within the contexts we live. Therefore, all that we "know" will inevitably be--in a very real way--a reflection of who we are and where we live.

I am going to try one more time. I know you believe this is true, but it is a fallacy.
Have I ever said we can know something in absolute terms? Nope But does this mean objective reality does not exist? Nope. So if we develop a shared understanding of objective reality, we have a window on truth. So common knowledge can reflect objective reality sufficiently for God's purpose. Thus we can rely upon God's word and not become a prisoner of epistemic twaddle.

 

[depthdeception]

Yet another distortion. No one but DD ASSUMED that my home brew was the plain meaning.

Right! They didn't have to assume, b/c you straight-up told them it was!

I was confident others would arrive at the same place. DD appears to be operating under the delusion that he alone understands the limits of knowledge, he is humble and others are ignorant. Twaddle.

You should really think of another word besides "twaddle," for you are giving the impression of a very limited vocabulary.

Yet more distortion, more self-serving mischaracterization, more twaddle.

I think this is the 30th "twaddle" on the thread. Really, some variety, please????

Of course we do. Say I am given a problem, what does 2 plus 2 equal? I come up with four. Now a small girl in China is given the same problem and she comes up with four. Did I influence her decision? Nope.

This is ridiculous. If you both came up with the calculation that "2+2=4," then it is obvious that you both have been encultured to believe that whatever "2", "2" and "4" represent are equivalent. However, "2+2=4" is only "true" b/c we as humans have agreed upon the values and equivalency of that which is designated by "2", "2" and "4." It is far from an "independent" discovery and you are deluding yourself if you think it is.

Now say I read a passage and after study conclude the best understanding is XYZ. If a person in China reads the same passage and comes up with the same understanding, what we have is an indication of the plain meaning of the text.

Besides the fact that this is impossible, you are both still drawing upon established beliefs in making your opinions about the meaning of the texts. The very fact that you are reading the same texts establishes that your "findings" about the text are based upon predetermined values relating to the texts.

Yes we must share common understandings of words and sentence structure, but the ideas are independent of the building blocks used to construct the communication. So independence refers to a lack of my influence on her conclusion, and has nothing whasoever to do with our common understanding of the building blocks of communication.

But neither of you are uninfluenced by others--by your cultural beliefs, by your education (the fact that you can read!), your theological heritage, ad nauseum. Neither of you are an island that independantly approaches the texts, as if you are blank pages simply waiting to be filled. The fact that you would come to a similar conclusion does not mean that you have independantly arrived at the same; rather, it is testimony to the power and influence of the hegenomy of theological/philosophical thought that has pervaded each of your cultural contexts to such an extent that you would arrive at the same conclusions.

To blur the distinction is twaddle

31....

, proving A and asserting B has been demonstrated.

Both of which you have yet to do...

 

[depthdeception]

Have I ever said we can know something in absolute terms? Nope

And I will say this one more time: When you advocate that your interpretation is the "plain meaning of the text," you are saying precisely that you do believe your interpretation to be absolute. After all, and as I have already discussed, there is not an objective interpretation merely waiting for someone to uncover it. Just as the Scriptures were written in the multifarious contexts in which the writers found themselves (and were therefore colored and influenced by those very contexts), so our interpretation of their writings will be colored by our particular contexts, the effects of which will be even more exacerbated by the fact that the contexts in which we live are nearly completely different than theirs.

Therefore, to assume that anything is the "plain meaning" of the text is to make an assumption that something absolute can be known about the meaning of the particular text, which is false. Intepretation--like writing itself--is indellibly a contextual reality. We must never assume that we are uninfluenced by our environments.

But does this mean objective reality does not exist? Nope.

I'm not talking about objective reality. I'm talking about objective interpretations. They do not exist. Our embodiedness and enculturedness makes this painfully obvious.

So if we develop a shared understanding of objective reality, we have a window on truth.

Who decides what "objective reality" is? The ones who also have found the "plain" meaning of the Scriptures? Circularity.

So common knowledge can reflect objective reality sufficiently for God's purpose. Thus we can rely upon God's word and not become a prisoner of epistemic twaddle.

You mean, "rely upon our interpretations of the Scriptures."

Moreover, your discussion of "common knowledge" as being an accurate reflection of the "plain meaning" of Scripture is not a very helpful, for who determines what "common knowledge" is?

You are the prisoner of "epistemic twaddle" (32...), for you have deluded yourself into thinking that you can arrive at an infallible interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Van]

DD why ask me a question if you are unable to discern the plain meaning of my post? If you are locked alone in a sound proof room so to speak by your inability to understand communication sufficiently for your purpose, why ask questions? And if you can, why are you derailing this thread?

Now lets consider the idea that from God's perspective, the prearranged fall was good. Does God do bad things? Yes and no. From the view of the person impacted by calamity, it is a bad for him thing. But if it is a part of the harsh providence created by God to bring folks to God, to cause them to seek God as refuge, then from that perspective it is a good thing. When we repent, we bring glory to God, fulfilling God's purpose in creation. He sets before us the choice between life and death and exhorts us to choose life, He says Here I am, Here I am. Our physical life is like birth pains, necessary to establish (to give birth to so to speak) a relationship with God.

DD, in your heart of hearts, ask yourself, why did I seek God. The fall is a good thing from God's perspective.

 

[Van]

And I will say this one more time: When you advocate that your interpretation is the "plain meaning of the text," you are saying precisely that you do believe your interpretation to be absolute.

This of couse is false. Note that no quote is provided where I advocated that my interpretation is the plain meaning of the text. He is derailing this thread with falsehoods unsupported by reality, in support of his one idea, which is a fallacy.

 

[Van]

Therefore, to assume that anything is the "plain meaning" of the text is to make an assumption that something absolute can be known about the meaning of the particular text, which is false.

I speak of sufficiency, and he asserts that I am advocating absolute knowledge. As if he did not know that strawmen burn.

 

[Van]

You are the prisoner of "epistemic twaddle" (32...), for you have deluded yourself into thinking that you can arrive at an infallible interpretation of Scripture.

Folks ask yourself, where did I say that an individual's understanding, or even the consensus of a community of believers is infallible. If you cannot remember, the reason is I never said any such silly thing. DD is not arguing with me. He is simply posting strawmen of his own contruction and knocking them down.

 

[holdon]

Does God do bad things? Yes and no.

Well, well. The Persian system after all comes out...

 

[Van]

I explained what I was saying and since you have not defined what system you are referring to, it appears to be a smear by insinuation.

 

[depthdeception]

DD why ask me a question if you are unable to discern the plain meaning of my post?

Yes, there is the "plain meaning" again...will it never end?

If you are locked alone in a sound proof room so to speak by your inability to understand communication sufficiently for your purpose, why ask questions? And if you can, why are you derailing this thread?

I understand what you are saying just fine. That, however, is not the issue. What I have been addressing is the blind naivety with which you utilize language. I understand that you do not realize that you are saying the things that I have pointed out you are saying. That is why I am making you aware of these things, so that you do not have to continue on in ignorance about the messages which the language you utilize is really communicating, not just the meaning that you--in your self-justifying hermeneutic--hear yourself saying.

Now lets consider the idea that from God's perspective, the prearranged fall was good.

I see no philosophically compelling reason why one should assume that the fall was "prearranged."

Does God do bad things? Yes and no. From the view of the person impacted by calamity, it is a bad for him thing. But if it is a part of the harsh providence created by God to bring folks to God, to cause them to seek God as refuge, then from that perspective it is a good thing.

If this is the criterion for "good" and "bad," you have effectively removed any discernible difference between them. Therefore, it is impossible to speak of anything that God does as being "good" and/or "bad," for everything that occurs would simply be that which occurs as a result of God's eternal decree that such should be. But if this is the case, there is no longer any compelling impetus for God to condemn a human (i.e., for "sin"), and the eternal destiny of each is left exclusively to the capricious choice of God.

When we repent, we bring glory to God, fulfilling God's purpose in creation.

God's purpose in creation is that we repent? Why not just refrain from creating the environment in which we must repent?

He sets before us the choice between life and death and exhorts us to choose life, He says Here I am, Here I am. Our physical life is like birth pains, necessary to establish (to give birth to so to speak) a relationship with God.

How is there any meaningful choice if it is all pre-arranged?

DD, in your heart of hearts, ask yourself, why did I seek God. The fall is a good thing from God's perspective.

I sought God because of the grace of Christ, a grace that would have been revealed even without the fall.

 

[depthdeception]

This of couse is false. Note that no quote is provided where I advocated that my interpretation is the plain meaning of the text. He is derailing this thread with falsehoods unsupported by reality, in support of his one idea, which is a fallacy.

I should not have to quote it again. You said, "I am presenting the truth of God." As "the truth of GOd" which you claimed you were presenting is based upon your interpretation of the Scriptures, it is accurate to say that you believed your interpretation to be the plain meaning of the text.

You, however, are just being stubborn and will not admit to your ill-advised statement. I offer you another chance to retract it.

 

[depthdeception]

I speak of sufficiency, and he asserts that I am advocating absolute knowledge. As if he did not know that strawmen burn.

I do know that strawmen burn. You are the prime example of this, as the most compelling response you can up with to all that I have posted in refutation of your points is to call my posts "twaddle." Flame on, my friend! Your perpetual burning is a pleasing fragrance.

 

[depthdeception]

Folks ask yourself, where did I say that an individual's understanding, or even the consensus of a community of believers is infallible. If you cannot remember, the reason is I never said any such silly thing. DD is not arguing with me. He is simply posting strawmen of his own contruction and knocking them down.

It's interesting that for all your appeals to the "folks," not one person has come to your defense. Obviously, they either realize that you blatantly wrong, or they realize that your argument cannot be won.

 

[Van]

Again, I am not trying to win anything. How can you win an exchange with someone who argues not against his opponent, but against mischaracterizations. Absolute, infalliable, perfect, are all constucts of yours, sufficiency, plain meaning exhibited by independently arrived at shared meanings, are my view.

 

[Van]

I speak of sufficiency and he says infallibility and then says I post up the strawmen. Twaddle.

 

[Van]

I reposted my remarks and they speak for themselves, DD is distorting my position into strawman.

 

[Van]

My position is the valid position, DD position is a fallacy, that is why rather than address my position is posts distortions.

 

[Van]

I believe in the Nicene Creed, I think it represents the plain meaning of scriptures. And DD does too, so his argument lacks integrety.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes but the issue is did God arrange for the fall? Look at this way. If God plans for something to happen, it will happen and no other alternate outcome is possible. No plan of God can be thwarted. Since the Word was anointed before creation, becoming the Christ (1 Peter 1:20) God's purpose in anointing must also have existed before creation. When God anointed the Word, His purpose was to consecrate the Word to be the Redeemer, to die as a perfect sacrifice as the Lamb of God (Acts 4:27-28). Therefore, God's purpose and predestined plan included the fall. God did not only know beforehand it would occur, because Christ was predestined to be crucificied by wicked hands, God had established that the Fall would occur. He created a test of Adam's conditional covenant with God - if you eat of it you shall surely die - knowing that Adam would fail the test because He can know the motivations of the heart, in this case Adam's. So God did not only permit the fall, but He arranged it, for His purpose and plan. Therefore, from God's perspective, the Fall is a good thing because it fulfills a part of God's plan for creation.

All Reformed Christians as far as I can see agree with you that the fall was indeed part of God's plan .
And as you say , from God's perspective (God meant it for good) it was for the salvation of the human race , I see no way around this .

Perhaps those who are offended that God should have a purpose for permitting sin would care to explain the connection between the Knowledge of God and sin .......... because it seems a waste of time to me to just say "you are wrong" without saying why.....

also it would help communication if it is possible to remind ourselves to season our words with salt ........ otherwise nothing but conflict will ensue which can only drive people away.

the starting point could be summed up ; did God know for certain Adam would fall > Yes or no

 

[depthdeception]

Again, I am not trying to win anything. How can you win an exchange with someone who argues not against his opponent, but against mischaracterizations.

They are not mischaracterizations. I am merely taking the logic of your proposition to its ultimate conclusion. If you cannot handle this kind of self-disclosure, you should not continue. Otherwise, I cannot be responsible for what you discover about the undesireable side of your beliefs...

Absolute, infalliable, perfect, are all constucts of yours,

For being "my" constructs, you do an excellent job of proferring them in the logic of your discussion...

sufficiency, plain meaning exhibited by independently arrived at shared meanings, are my view.

How is this not an "absolute" statement?!? Once again, as before, you have equated your opinion with "plain meaning" which cannot be taken any other way than to suggest that your interpretation of something is absolute!!! I honestly cannot understand how you do not see this!