Question arising from the Calvinism/predestined threads

[Hammster]

Your response at #56 to my #55 post was a red herring logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you continue to use this kind of illogical strategy with a logical fallacy.

The question remains unanswered because of your logical fallacy. You are not addressing the content of what I posted at #55.

When will you quit using red herring logical fallacies in your responses to me? You have done this too many times to mention over the years.

Oz

Still not an answer to my question. We can't have a discussion when you avoid answering questions.

 

[98cwitr]

I submit to God's omniscience of what happened with the Fall into sin by Adam and Eve and God's omniscience of how Genesis 2:16-17 was implemented in God's plan for the universe, including God's giving Adam and Eve the ability to say yea or nay to good and evil.


Oz

Then we have come to an agreement here. The only thing we lack is that what you call "real choice" I call simply "a perception of choice." It's not real choice if it's foreordained imo.

 

[Avid]

...Gen 2:16-17 states,

16 But the Lord God warned him, “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden— 17 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die (NLT).​

• Freely eat from every tree
• If he ate from the tree of the knowledge of evil, he would 'die'.
• What did he do?
• The outcome was: He ate from the evil tree and death entered the human race...

Even your NLT says this in the way it is written in the KJV, but you do not list it that way. Why do you repeatedly misquote this passage? Really want to know your reasoning...



Where do you get that it was an evil tree? The passage says it is a tree of a specific knowledge...

.

 

[twin1954]

These statements are severely incorrect. For an accurate discussion of what inductive Bible study is, please see the following,

Bauer, David R., and Robert A. Traina. Inductive Bible Study: A Comprehensive Guide to the Practice of Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.

They are not incorrect. I too was taught the inductive method of Bibles study in my hermeneutics class. The fact that you disagree with me in no way makes my statements incorrect.

 

[twin1954]

You seem to be exposed to the wrong kind of understanding of discovery (inductive) Bible study. At the lay level, I recommend Oletta Wald, The Joy of Discovery in Bible Study and the book that PrincetonGuy has recommended (for a more advanced level) by Bauer & Traina. Details for the Oletta Wald publications are:

[FONT=&quot]Oletta Wald 1975[FONT=&quot].[/FONT] The Joy of Discovery in Bible Study (rev. ed.). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House,; Oletta Wald[FONT=&quot] 1976.[/FONT] The Joy of Teaching Discovery Bible Study. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House.[/FONT]​

Last night I completed an inductive Bible study of Col 4:2-6 that I'm leading this morning and the three areas we pursue in this kind of study are:

1. Observation
2. Interpretation
3. Application

The focus is NOT on application alone. The focus is on ALL three areas. In fact, in my preparation for this study I have made sure that I have gone to cross referenced verses that assist in interpretation.

It seems that you want to impose your understanding on the text with statements such as, 'While the literal is true an (sic) cannot be ignored the spiritual messages is the meaning'. This is not true. The exegesis of the text is where one finds the 'meaning' of the text. From where do you get your 'spiritual messages' of the meaning? Is that your application?

In inductive Bible study, application is only one of three aspects and it comes AFTER the other two aspects, observation and interpretation, have taken place. I agree that some may place more emphasis on application, but I've seen that more often in a 'Life Application' Bible study and NOT in discovery, inductive Bible study.

Oz

First I would point out that there is no such thing as lay and clergy. We are all the same. Some are just called to a different work than others.

Second I am familiar with what inductive Bible study is as I was taught it in school. As I told PrincetonGuy the fact that you disagree with me in no way makes my statements incorrect or wrong. We have a different perspective to be sure. You may disagree with my hermeneutic method but I seek to interpret the Scriptures the way that Christ and the Apostles did.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

They are not incorrect. I too was taught the inductive method of Bibles study in my hermeneutics class.

I most certainly would not rely upon what I was taught in one class by one teacher, and especially not when that one teacher’s opinion is not just out of the ballpark, but somewhere in the twilight zone. Perhaps drawing a comparison between deductive Bible study and inductive Bible study would help you. In deductive Bible study (the very root of Calvinism), the Bible is interpreted upon one or more basic premises (in Calvinism, upon the premise that God is absolutely sovereign). In inductive Bible study, data is collected and analyzed to reach a conclusion.

For example, does the Bible teach that a Christian can lose his salvation? Calvinists, studying the Bible deductively based on the premise that God is absolutely sovereign, must conclude that he cannot lose it, and all of the “warning passages” in Hebrews, etc., must be so interpreted. Non-Calvinists, studying the Bible inductively, study all of the “warning passages” individually to learn what they individually teach—comparing them with all of the “assurance passages” individually to learn what they individually teach. Then, both the “warning passages” and the “assurance passage” are compared with all of the other passages in the Bible and a tentative conclusion is drawn. At this point, the student compares his analysis and conclusions with the analysis and conclusions of others. By doing so, and praying throughout the process for divine guidance and wisdom, the student begins to form, in his own mind, the answer to the question—does the Bible teach that a Christian can lose his salvation?

The fact that you disagree with me in no way makes my statements incorrect.

I disagree with your statements because of the fact that your statements are incorrect.

 

[OzSpen]

Still not an answer to my question. We can't have a discussion when you avoid answering questions.

You refuse to answer the content of my post, so you are giving me another red herring logical fallacy. When will you quit being illogical in your response?

 

[Hammster]

You refuse to answer the content of my post, so you are giving me another red herring logical fallacy. When will you quit being illogical in your response?

My question directly reflected the content of your post whether you recognized it or not. Calling it a fallacy does not make it so. So we could have been discussing your post, but you'd rather play these games. We cannot have a discussion when you do this.

 

[OzSpen]

Then we have come to an agreement here. The only thing we lack is that what you call "real choice" I call simply "a perception of choice." It's not real choice if it's foreordained imo.

That's your opinion of my view and it is false.

 

[OzSpen]

My question directly reflected the content of your post whether you recognized it or not. Calling it a fallacy does not make it so. So we could have been discussing your post, but you'd rather play these games. We cannot have a discussion when you do this.

Your response at #56 did not answer the content of my post at #55. So your #56 post was a red herring fallacy, thus making logical discussion impossible. Don't you understand that when you use a logical fallacy, you are practising illogic?

 

[skypair]

The word in Gen. 6:6 is relent, not repent in my Bible at least. Are you saying that the Son did the creating days 1-6 in Gen. 1?

The concept of irresistible grace is supported by Scripture via election. I guess the disciples were "yes-men"...see John 15.

I read from the KJV mostly. But here's another interesting demonstration of the Creator-Son not being omniscient. Gen 6:7 — He was about to destroy all man and every living thing off the earth — until He "found" Noah and his generations.

It's the same with Adam. God came to visit Adam in the morning calling out his name. Did God know that Adam had sinned yet? No. He even asks why Noah is wearing fig leaves.

As to irresistible grace — you are aware, aren't you, that almost anything you want to prove can be proved by cherry-picking scriptures, right? or by simply redefining words. Let's take grace, for instance. What is grace? It is the wisdom of God given freely and unconditionally to men. The gospel of Jesus Christ just happens to be one form of grace — the wisdom of God concerning salvation. But if we want grace to follow us throughout our lives (grow in grace), we must know, believe, and appropriate (= faith) God's wisdom, grace, in our daily living.

So you see, grace, the gospel of Jesus Christ, is almost irresistible — you can go hardly anywhere where it cannot be heard (so the Bible says also). But we all know that salvation (meaning "grace" to Calvinists) IS resistible, don't we? I mean, that is why so many in this world are lost, isn't it?

skypair

 

[OzSpen]

First I would point out that there is no such thing as lay and clergy. We are all the same. Some are just called to a different work than others.

Second I am familiar with what inductive Bible study is as I was taught it in school. As I told PrincetonGuy the fact that you disagree with me in no way makes my statements incorrect or wrong. We have a different perspective to be sure. You may disagree with my hermeneutic method but I seek to interpret the Scriptures the way that Christ and the Apostles did.

Why did you misrepresent what I wrote? I did not use the word clergy and did not differentiate between lay and clergy. That's a false dichotomy that you falsely placed on my post.

The facts are that in the inductive Bible study which I led this morning, it was NOT dominated by application. There was an emphasis on observation, interpretation, and application. You may have experienced an over-emphasis on application in the groups you have attended, but that does not happen when I lead an inductive Bible study.

Oz

 

[skypair]

Then we have come to an agreement here. The only thing we lack is that what you call "real choice" I call simply "a perception of choice." It's not real choice if it's foreordained imo.

Here's another understanding you might slip into your Bible — foreordain. What God foreknows, He takes into account in His overall plan for creation. It does not mean that God necessarily meant for that to happen the way He foresaw that it would. In fact, the only events and people that God can predestine to actively carry out His plan are believers (Ro 8:29). They are the ones who will obey Him, right?

 

[OzSpen]

Even your NLT says this in the way it is written in the KJV, but you do not list it that way. Why do you repeatedly misquote this passage? Really want to know your reasoning...

Where do you get that it was an evil tree? The passage says it is a tree of a specific knowledge...

.

I never misquoted a thing. Nothing.

Where did I get the idea that it was an evil tree? That's because it is called 'the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil. It's the tree of the knowledge of 'good AND evil'. It's the tree of the knowledge of 'good'. It's the tree of the knowledge of 'evil'.

Thanks,
Oz

 

[Hammster]

Your response at #56 did not answer the content of my post at #55. So your #56 post was a red herring fallacy, thus making logical discussion impossible. Don't you understand that when you use a logical fallacy, you are practising illogic?

Still avoiding the question, I see. I can't say it was unexpected.

 

[OzSpen]

Still avoiding the question, I see. I can't say it was unexpected.

You are still using a red herring logical fallacy in your response to me. Therefore, reasonable, logical discussion is impossible because of your actions.

Until you improve your behaviour through logical actions towards me, I will not respond any further on this thread to you.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

You are still using a red herring logical fallacy in your response to me. Therefore, reasonable, logical discussion is impossible because of your actions.

Until you improve your behaviour through logical actions towards me, I will not respond any further on this thread to you.

Oz

Your avoidance has been noted.

 

[98cwitr]

Here's another understanding you might slip into your Bible — foreordain. What God foreknows, He takes into account in His overall plan for creation. It does not mean that God necessarily meant for that to happen the way He foresaw that it would. In fact, the only events and people that God can predestine to actively carry out His plan are believers (Ro 8:29). They are the ones who will obey Him, right?

You're leaving out that God created everyone. If He foreknew, and decided to create anyway, then it must be part of His plan or He wouldn't have created them...right?

IOW, Why does God create people He knows will never believe and will just send them to Hell? Gotta be a reason for that...what's your answer?

 

[Winman]

You're leaving out that God created everyone. If He foreknew, and decided to create anyway, then it must be part of His plan or He wouldn't have created them...right?

IOW, Why does God create people He knows will never believe and will just send them to Hell? Gotta be a reason for that...what's your answer?

If God never created them, they would make no decisions. There would be nothing to foreknow.

God simply knows what a person will choose. If a person chooses Jesus in their lifetime, that is what God knew before the foundation of the world and chose them.

If a man never chooses Jesus, this is what God foreknew before the foundation of the world.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus knew "from the beginning" who would not believe, therefore he also knew who would believe.

Jhn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Jesus knew that only Judas was a "devil", he knew the other eleven would truly believe on him. He chose the eleven to spread the gospel, he chose Judas because he knew he would betray him and bring about his crucifixion. But God did not make Judas do this, God never tempts any man to sin (Jam 1:13), he simply infallibly knew what Judas would do.

 

[98cwitr]

If God never created them, they would make no decisions. There would be nothing to foreknow.

That's a logical fallacy. The result of such thinking would result with God never knowing what someone would or would not do, because He hadn't made the decision to create them yet. But if God is Omniscient, all His [perceived by man] decisions would already be foreknown by Him. Therefore, God doesn't make decisions, because everything has already been eternally decided. It's like you're trying to put a number on infinity...it just doesn't work.

John 15:16New International Version (NIV)

16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

If a man never chooses Jesus, this is what God foreknew before the foundation of the world.

It doesn't seem that you have answered the question, only reiterated it in a statement. Can you tell me as to Why God would create those who never "choose" Christ? If He knew it, couldn't He have simply decided not to create them? Also reconcile that there are no "if's" with God.

Do you not think that Judas was part of God's plan? If so, what was God's plan for Judas and do you believe that plan could have ever deviated from it's original intention? If not, then Judas had a real choice in the matter, and also God's Omniscience would have to be taken into question.