What Convinced you God Exists?

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hermeneutics? Mostly common sense and the opposite of laziness. It's a little like scientific investigation, that.

Then why do people come to different interpretations using hermeneutics?

Why should God clarify the issue between Christians? What do you think God is trying to do?

Isn't God trying to tell us about Himself and how we are to behave and be saved?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then why do people come to different interpretations using hermeneutics?

Different worldviews, biases, agendas, and a lousy hermeneutic.

Isn't God trying to tell us about Himself and how we are to behave and be saved?

"No. There is no try. Do, or do not." --Yoda.

God isn't trying to do anything. He is doing it. His problem is not communication. Our problem is reception. He is talking to idiots who lack the capacity to understand, (yes, including myself). We are mere humans.

Anyhow, to your question: God is making of each of those he has (or will have) regenerated, into that specific member of the Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, the Dwelling Place of God, in Heaven. THAT is what he is doing. And he is doing it perfectly.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Different worldviews, biases, agendas, and a lousy hermeneutic.

Then hermeneutics cannot be used to determine what the correct interpretation is of the Bible. How have you determined that hermeneutics is the correct way to interpret the bible? Many Christians believe the Holy Spirit interprets the bible for them, why are they wrong?

"No. There is no try. Do, or do not." --Yoda.

God isn't trying to do anything. He is doing it. His problem is not communication. Our problem is reception. He is talking to idiots who lack the capacity to understand, (yes, including myself). We are mere humans.

Anyhow, to your question: God is making of each of those he has (or will have) regenerated, into that specific member of the Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, the Dwelling Place of God, in Heaven. THAT is what he is doing. And he is doing it perfectly.

How do you know any of this is true? The only source you have is the Bible and you have said it can be interpreted wrong. Why are you right?

It is interesting that a perfect God created us and cannot find a way to communicate with us that we will understand. He created us as idiots, unable to understand so why is it not His fault? God also sits there and watches us struggle to understand and use the Bible in wicked ways to hurt each other and does nothing to clarify himself. Why?

 

[dóxatotheó]

Was it a philosophical argument such as the cosmological argument or was it some type of personal experience? or something other than one of these?

through observations of quantum mechanics we realize such things like quantum fluctuations which is “a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually filled with quantum energy and particles that blink in and out of existence for a fleeting moment”. These quantum fluctuations produce randomly fluctuating electric fields that can affect electrons, now that you know the basics of these two very popular quantum theories lets begin with why only a monotheist God is logical to these theories according to scientist they believe quantum flux is the proof of “endless universe” which isn't logical still as we understand that we have to state the universe is independent as well as energy and matter which isn't logical because they are all are contingent which we know by observations of the universe. The newest theory for the beginning of our universe i will show and critique it right now and tell you what is the only logical explanation without a God then i will tell you guys by a God. “thermal radiation pops out of the vacuum not just in black holes, but in all systems that possess causal horizons. For example, an accelerating probe has a Rindler horizon from which it detects a thermal bath of radiation, providing the Unruh effect. Similarly, the horizon of an exponentially accelerating universe exhibits a de Sitter temperature. During the accelerated cosmic inflation, related fluctuations of the vacuum were generated and potentially seeded the present-day structures of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. If this happened, we owe our existence to early quantum fluctuations”. Is the newest theory we have for our universe but guess what this isn't logical because in quantum mechanics we yet to find emptiness of space to make the argument that we are eternally in ad infinitum concerning universes. This is what relatively brought me at such a young age to study religions i watch atheist youtubers like CosmicSkeptc and take time writing down refutations to his arguments and i also study metaphysics and philosophy so ig i would say that played a big role in my conversion other than God ofc.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

through observations of quantum mechanics we realize such things like quantum fluctuations which is “a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually filled with quantum energy and particles that blink in and out of existence for a fleeting moment”. These quantum fluctuations produce randomly fluctuating electric fields that can affect electrons, now that you know the basics of these two very popular quantum theories lets begin with why only a monotheist God is logical to these theories according to scientist they believe quantum flux is the proof of “endless universe” which isn't logical still as we understand that we have to state the universe is independent as well as energy and matter which isn't logical because they are all are contingent which we know by observations of the universe. The newest theory for the beginning of our universe i will show and critique it right now and tell you what is the only logical explanation without a God then i will tell you guys by a God. “thermal radiation pops out of the vacuum not just in black holes, but in all systems that possess causal horizons. For example, an accelerating probe has a Rindler horizon from which it detects a thermal bath of radiation, providing the Unruh effect. Similarly, the horizon of an exponentially accelerating universe exhibits a de Sitter temperature. During the accelerated cosmic inflation, related fluctuations of the vacuum were generated and potentially seeded the present-day structures of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. If this happened, we owe our existence to early quantum fluctuations”. Is the newest theory we have for our universe but guess what this isn't logical because in quantum mechanics we yet to find emptiness of space to make the argument that we are eternally in ad infinitum concerning universes. This is what relatively brought me at such a young age to study religions i watch atheist youtubers like CosmicSkeptc and take time writing down refutations to his arguments and i also study metaphysics and philosophy so ig i would say that played a big role in my conversion other than God ofc.

So is it because you have not found another answer for our existence the reason you believe in a God? or do you have some direct evidence that a God exists?

 

[dóxatotheó]

So is it because you have not found another answer for our existence the reason you believe in a God? or do you have some direct evidence that a God exists?

both archaeology and studying of philosophical arguments for God and seeking religions that possibly can be true i read skeptic scholars all the time

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

both archaeology and studying of philosophical arguments for God and seeking religions that possibly can be true i read skeptic scholars all the time

This does not tell me why you believe a God exists and that it is the Christian God. What argument and what archeology convinced you?

 

[dóxatotheó]

This does not tell me why you believe a God exists and that it is the Christian God. What argument and what archeology convinced you?

I already stated i question our core existence and reality of men until i believed in just an existence of a diety. and the argument more or less is the argument based on contingency and dependency also hard-core determinism on the universe breaks reality but thats a different discussion, the archaeology well it stranges cant name it all just will show you the sources and the reason the christian God because ik philosophy and ethics and other religions so ik this religion is the only logical and small religions arent provable as they hold know weight and historically incoherent
Sources: Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then hermeneutics cannot be used to determine what the correct interpretation is of the Bible. How have you determined that hermeneutics is the correct way to interpret the bible? Many Christians believe the Holy Spirit interprets the bible for them, why are they wrong?

Hermeneutics only means:
noun

1. the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

Hermeneutics is not a particular method. Whether people mean to or not, or know that they are doing it or not, they are using hermeneutics when they read anything.

Also, 'the correct interpretation' is impossible for us. We don't even entirely understand ourselves, nor our current circumstances --how are we going to entirely understand God, and spiritual things?

How do you know any of this is true? The only source you have is the Bible and you have said it can be interpreted wrong. Why are you right?

Logic shows most of it. The things concerning Heaven are part logic, part Scripture. Of course, I cannot express nor know the depth of these things, but I have every reason to trust the Word of God.

Of course, I can get some of it wrong, but that is no worse than how we constantly get things wrong in this life, as long as I understand that in both this life and in interpretation of Scripture, I am fallible. Meanwhile, as I have said before concerning interpretation of Scripture, I trust my thinking more than I trust anyone else's (*a), because so far it makes sense to me to do so.

(*a) I do trust certain authors, such as John Owen, concerning most things, more than I trust myself. Certainly I trust them to express truth better than I can do.

It is interesting that a perfect God created us and cannot find a way to communicate with us that we will understand. He created us as idiots, unable to understand so why is it not His fault? God also sits there and watches us struggle to understand and use the Bible in wicked ways to hurt each other and does nothing to clarify himself. Why?

This makes me chuckle because I can't remember to whom I said what. But it seems likely, as much as we have interacted, that I would have said to you by now that God is not particularly interested in communicating all things to all people. Why? His purpose from the beginning has been to create a [particular] people for himself, and that, not from a pool of possibles, but as the [particular] individuals he has created for that very purpose.

Those who rejected God from birth to death, were created for the purpose (Romans 9) of showing God's mercy, glory and justice to the objects of his mercy. They are to blame because they constantly (in all they do) oppose God. They sin in all they do (Romans 8) and the wages of sin is death.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hermeneutics only means:
noun

1. the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

Hermeneutics is not a particular method. Whether people mean to or not, or know that they are doing it or not, they are using hermeneutics when they read anything.

Also, 'the correct interpretation' is impossible for us. We don't even entirely understand ourselves, nor our current circumstances --how are we going to entirely understand God, and spiritual things?

I agree. This is why I don't understand how you can point to the bible as a reliable source of truth.

Logic shows most of it. The things concerning Heaven are part logic, part Scripture. Of course, I cannot express nor know the depth of these things, but I have every reason to trust the Word of God.

Why? When you just admitted you cannot know the correct interpretation of the bible.

Of course, I can get some of it wrong, but that is no worse than how we constantly get things wrong in this life, as long as I understand that in both this life and in interpretation of Scripture, I am fallible. Meanwhile, as I have said before concerning interpretation of Scripture, I trust my thinking more than I trust anyone else's (*a), because so far it makes sense to me to do so.

Just because something makes sense does not mean it is true. It makes sense to people that heavier objects fall at a faster rate than lighter objects as well. When there are different Christians interpreting the bible differently on important issues such as how to be saved and you saying we cannot know what the correct interpretation of scripture, I have little confidence anyone knows what God is saying in the bible.

(*a) I do trust certain authors, such as John Owen, concerning most things, more than I trust myself. Certainly I trust them to express truth better than I can do.

Why?

This makes me chuckle because I can't remember to whom I said what. But it seems likely, as much as we have interacted, that I would have said to you by now that God is not particularly interested in communicating all things to all people. Why? His purpose from the beginning has been to create a [particular] people for himself, and that, not from a pool of possibles, but as the [particular] individuals he has created for that very purpose.

Those who rejected God from birth to death, were created for the purpose (Romans 9) of showing God's mercy, glory and justice to the objects of his mercy. They are to blame because they constantly (in all they do) oppose God. They sin in all they do (Romans 8) and the wages of sin is death.

How do you know any of this is true when other Christians point to the same Bible and claim it says something different? Many Christian claim all can be saved and God doe snot pick and choose who He saves.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree. This is why I don't understand how you can point to the bible as a reliable source of truth.

I'm not saying we can't know anything. What's more, I'm pretty sure you know that. The problem is not with the Bible. It is with the human mind and will.

Why? When you just admitted you cannot know the correct interpretation of the bible.

I am saying, as you know, that we cannot know THE WHOLE interpretation of the Bible, in any one part. When God says, "tree", we see 'tree' and think we understand. God sees quantum particles and what causes them.

Just because something makes sense does not mean it is true. It makes sense to people that heavier objects fall at a faster rate than lighter objects as well. When there are different Christians interpreting the bible differently on important issues such as how to be saved and you saying we cannot know what the correct interpretation of scripture, I have little confidence anyone knows what God is saying in the bible.

Of course. But that fact something makes sense gives me confidence in it as opposed to what doesn't make sense. Again, not that we can't know something useful in interpretation, but that we can't know ALL of the interpretation.

Why?

Why not?

How do you know any of this is true when other Christians point to the same Bible and claim it says something different? Many Christian claim all can be saved and God doe snot pick and choose who He saves.

Again with this? Salvation is by grace through faith. And that not of yourselves. Hello. The opposing point of view thinks it logically thus implied that we do not choose, and that we are not to blame for wrongdoing if God set it up to happen this way. So they ignore huge swaths of Scripture, claiming we ignore huge swaths of Scripture. They ignore simple logic that says "Chance" has no causative ability. Fine. Watch debates with James White. Or study the matter yourself. As a reasoning atheist, I should think it would be natural to you to be confident that FREE will does not exist, and that your choices are caused, but no --you would rather contend.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm not saying we can't know anything. What's more, I'm pretty sure you know that. The problem is not with the Bible. It is with the human mind and will.

So then how do you know what you know from the bible is true?

I am saying, as you know, that we cannot know THE WHOLE interpretation of the Bible, in any one part. When God says, "tree", we see 'tree' and think we understand. God sees quantum particles and what causes them.

Tis does not answer my question. When Christians differ on what a passage says, how can you determine what is the correct interpretation?

Of course. But that fact something makes sense gives me confidence in it as opposed to what doesn't make sense. Again, not that we can't know something useful in interpretation, but that we can't know ALL of the interpretation.

How do yo know that the interpretation you think is correct is actually true?

Why not?

Not my problem. You said you trust certain authors, I asked why. Don't shift the burden of proof to me, I never made a claim.

Again with this? Salvation is by grace through faith. And that not of yourselves. Hello. The opposing point of view thinks it logically thus implied that we do not choose, and that we are not to blame for wrongdoing if God set it up to happen this way. So they ignore huge swaths of Scripture, claiming we ignore huge swaths of Scripture. They ignore simple logic that says "Chance" has no causative ability. Fine. Watch debates with James White. Or study the matter yourself.

This is just telling me what you believe not why you believe it is true. I am still not understanding why you think your interpretations are correct and others are false.

As a reasoning atheist, I should think it would be natural to you to be confident that FREE will does not exist, and that your choices are caused, but no --you would rather contend.

This is an aside but my atheism has no bearing on what I believe about anything else including free will. There are atheists that believe in free will and some that do not, atheism does not require a belief in anything else. With that said I lean toward we have no free will but I am not certain that is true.

I am not contending, I am wanting an answer to why you think your interpretations are correct and others are incorrect.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So then how do you know what you know from the bible is true?

Round and round. Because it makes sense, because I've been careful with the hermeneutics, and peer-checked my work (lol), and because it fits experience.

Tis does not answer my question. When Christians differ on what a passage says, how can you determine what is the correct interpretation?

Because it makes sense, because I've been careful with the hermeneutics, because I've checked my work against the work of others, and because it fits experience.

How do yo know that the interpretation you think is correct is actually true?

Because it fits experience, because I've been careful with the hermeneutics, checking my work against the work of others, and because it makes sense.

Not my problem. You said you trust certain authors, I asked why. Don't shift the burden of proof to me, I never made a claim.

Why do you trust certain people more than others? I trust certain authors because they come across to me as reliable, sensible, careful, and logical, and last but not least, able to state their thoughts both concisely and accurately. I admire their minds, capable of holding long lines of thinking to write them down without the use of a word processor. These guys have me saying "yes" repeatedly as I read. Sometimes they come up with thoughts I would never have considered, yet they fit perfectly, and it is like eating food to read and think about what they say.

This is just telling me what you believe not why you believe it is true. I am still not understanding why you think your interpretations are correct and others are false.

I said, "Of course. But that fact something makes sense gives me confidence in it as opposed to what doesn't make sense. Again, not that we can't know something useful in interpretation, but that we can't know ALL of the interpretation."

Their interpretations don't make sense to me, or at least, not as much sense to me as mine does. Do you want me to go through that whole spiel again about hermeneutics and good sense, etc?

Why do you believe what you believe?

This is an aside but my atheism has no bearing on what I believe about anything else including free will. There are atheists that believe in free will and some that do not, atheism does not require a belief in anything else. With that said I lean toward we have no free will but I am not certain that is true.

I am not contending, I am wanting an answer to why you think your interpretations are correct and others are incorrect.

Yet you no doubt claim a certain adherence to logic, no? The same thing (i.e. logic) you think causes your atheism then, should also cause you to see that your choices are inevitably caused.

Apart from going into a long dissertation that you won't read anyway, I don't see any use in spending hours putting it down. If you have specific questions, I can try to answer them.

Here's just one condensed version of a small subject within a bigger subject in the whole hours long reading: "There is no such thing as chance causing anything. It is self-contradictory to say chance can determine anything. 'Chance' is us guessing." That is within the larger subject of the fact that hermeneutics must not produce utter nonsense, unless the text is utter nonsense, (and even then it must be in-kind nonsense.)

 

[cvanwey]

God looks upon the heart to judge the deeds.

You did not address my question(s). Please allow me to simplify.

1. Do all the unchosen reside in the same hell, or, are there differing levels/ranks/other?
2. And, how do you know?

We cannot achieve grace. It is purely the gift of God, and the work of God.

God's 'grace' is achieved, according to <your> beliefs, by 'worship'.

You insist on seeing the creature God has changed, exalted even above the angels, once having seen God's face, as somehow comparable in God's mind to the creatures destined for the Lake of Fire. In the same way as, I expect, you can admit we do not know just what it will be like in Heaven where we will see that we have been looking at things backwards all along, I imagine that those in the LOF will none experience quite the same thing another does.

Nor will those in the LOF even resemble the human you thought you knew here on earth. All graces removed, God having withdrawn from them, nothing about them to commend them to anyone, they are become wraiths, formless of soul, vacant of heart, despairing of will. Your description of a dichotomy (even if 'dichotomy' is useful) falls way short in its human notions of bliss and torment. All the color is missing from your painting.

This reminds me of what a preacher, tired out after a conference, imprudently told a woman who, convicted and distressed, said she thought she had been too sinful for God to forgive: He said something like, "Lady, you have no idea how bad you've been!"

The difference between your notion of hell and heaven isn't strong enough. There is a just reason for the Lake of Fire, and for God to purposely create those who will reside there. (But you may be surprised just who those will be.)

The Bible presents a dichotomy.

the chosen = heaven
not chosen = hell

heaven = eternal bliss
hell = eternal burning

I don't know, except by the 'witness of the Spirit of God within me, that I am a child of God.' And one other thing I have mentioned: I have found that my motive is no longer to make or to keep myself safe, but to see God's face.

Okay, so you do not know if you have been elected, but you somehow know there exists some 'spirit of God within you'?

No. Nothing I do has any result in the Gospel. I am forgiven my sin by Christ's death. Not by my acceptance (worship) of it. My confession and repentance are a result of the Gospel, not a cause of it.

Concerning a person's 'best intentions', "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve." One person's lie, just as another's, is a trespassing against the whole law of God, but then, one person's lie, unlike another's, is judged against them according to their intentions. The same works for one person's generosity being different from another's.

You look to contradict yourself here. You state nothing you do has any result, and that you are forgiven of your sin by Christ's death. This would mean all are saved.

But then, you state "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve."

The 'Fall' of Adam and its effects is far from sin's only relevance. Christ's death was because of, and to remove, sin. It wrenched Satan's dominion from his grasp. My sin hereafter is an identifying with the 'old man', so sin MUST be turned away from. (My 'worship' of Christ implies obedience, btw).

No. As I keep saying, you cannot 'turn away from sin'. It is impossible. God offers His grace because you [are] a sinner. All you must do is accept and Worship Him. Worship any way you like, but you will still be a 'sinner.'

 

[cvanwey]

What has that to do with what I said about faith being evidence. Objective. I don't really care what others mean by the word faith. They are not familiar with what I am talking about.

Lol, I guess if you can repeat, I can too! "So you present this as our only choices: Evidence, or faith. Remember the Bible saying, "Faith is the evidence..."? You pretend, though, that faith is not evidence and evidence is not faith. While there is truth to that, the two are not that simply separable in the Regenerate. You really may as well give that up." Ignoring or hoping to define it away according to what other people say about faith doesn't render what I said meaningless. It just means either you are ignoring it, or you don't see it as valid or useful.

Okay, please allow me to ask you again.

Is your conclusion, that Jesus rose from the grave more-so based upon:

1. Discernment/apprehension

or

2. Hope/trust/faith

Please explain?

To be one what --messiah? Not sure why you mention this.

The Bible tells it's readers that if Jesus has not risen, then He is not whom He claims to be. This is why I would like to know how you are so certain He rose? Give me your best reason?

 

[cvanwey]

I expect, as your type 1 and type 2 discussion went, my mistake would be less grievous than yours?

But have you never considered the question of what a gaping yaw of nothingness mankind is? It seems to me more than obvious we were made to be completed BY God (or IN him, in a certain sense), and are not what we think we are. All things are upheld by him, but he may even be the essence of their existence, but we, unlike any other creature, were made in his image for his particular purposes. We are not complete beings, until we see him as he is. There's a huge pun waiting for us, or a play on words, full of other plays on words.

Have you heard the story of the puddle?

Furthermore, just because we have the ability to think about something, does not mean it must exist. "Meaning" may merely be what we, as individuals, assign to it...

And yes, of course type 2 errors are more grievous

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Round and round. Because it makes sense, because I've been careful with the hermeneutics, and peer-checked my work (lol), and because it fits experience.

None of that is good evidence it is correct.

Because it makes sense, because I've been careful with the hermeneutics, because I've checked my work against the work of others, and because it fits experience.

None of that is good evidence it is correct.

Because it fits experience, because I've been careful with the hermeneutics, checking my work against the work of others, and because it makes sense.

None of that is good evidence it is correct.

Why do you trust certain people more than others? I trust certain authors because they come across to me as reliable, sensible, careful, and logical, and last but not least, able to state their thoughts both concisely and accurately. I admire their minds, capable of holding long lines of thinking to write them down without the use of a word processor. These guys have me saying "yes" repeatedly as I read. Sometimes they come up with thoughts I would never have considered, yet they fit perfectly, and it is like eating food to read and think about what they say.

I trust authors that can show what they are saying is true. Not just because they are logical or sensible etc.

I said, "Of course. But that fact something makes sense gives me confidence in it as opposed to what doesn't make sense. Again, not that we can't know something useful in interpretation, but that we can't know ALL of the interpretation."

Again, how do you know what is useful is the actual correct interpretation?

Their interpretations don't make sense to me, or at least, not as much sense to me as mine does. Do you want me to go through that whole spiel again about hermeneutics and good sense, etc?

What makes sense to us does not show that it is true.

Why do you believe what you believe?

With evidence I determine is good based on my standards of evidence. This is another more complex topic though.

Yet you no doubt claim a certain adherence to logic, no? The same thing (i.e. logic) you think causes your atheism then, should also cause you to see that your choices are inevitably caused.

I said you may be correct. I have not decided my stance on free will but I lean toward we do not have free will.

Apart from going into a long dissertation that you won't read anyway, I don't see any use in spending hours putting it down. If you have specific questions, I can try to answer them.

Here's just one condensed version of a small subject within a bigger subject in the whole hours long reading: "There is no such thing as chance causing anything. It is self-contradictory to say chance can determine anything. 'Chance' is us guessing." That is within the larger subject of the fact that hermeneutics must not produce utter nonsense, unless the text is utter nonsense, (and even then it must be in-kind nonsense.)

I am not talking about utter nonsense but reasonable different interpretations of the same scripture. It is not unreasonable or utter nonsense to think from scripture that works are required for salvation or that works are not required for salvation. How do we know which interpretations are correct?

 

[Mark Quayle]

None of that is good evidence it is correct.

You are demanding evidence within a context --I.e. the truth of at least, the existence of God, and many agreed-upon attributes between otherwise opponents. That being so, the evidence is scripture --not even practice or experience. Practice and experience may be convincing, but not logical debate-worthy. So are you asking what Scripture supports my position, and what I do with the Scripture they claim supports theirs?

There are also debates between those Christians who deny the common belief in the authority of Scripture. Those debates often swing into simple logic, math, and the hard sciences. These are easier, because people are not so quick to fall into spiritual/emotional indigestion over use of Scripture that implies things to them, heretical.

So what sort of evidence do you want, to support my use of Scripture as opposed theirs?

I trust authors that can show what they are saying is true. Not just because they are logical or sensible etc.

Good for you. That is what logic and sense are about.

Again, how do you know what is useful is the actual correct interpretation?

I just finished telling you, nobody has THE correct interpretation, but God. The best we have is the most accurate use of the Scripture, compared to the opposition or to inanity.

What makes sense to us does not show that it is true.

Of course, yet it is part of why we believe what we do.

With evidence I determine is good based on my standards of evidence. This is another more complex topic though.

It is your topic. You asked for evidence.

I said you may be correct. I have not decided my stance on free will but I lean toward we do not have free will.

Glad to hear it.

I am not talking about utter nonsense but reasonable different interpretations of the same scripture. It is not unreasonable or utter nonsense to think from scripture that works are required for salvation or that works are not required for salvation. How do we know which interpretations are correct?

Context, small and large, is a major part of good hermeneutics. So is language theory, and the particular original language, and many, many other things. Usually, logical implications of claims to meaning are more stridently brought to mind than the rest of hermeneutics, and this is usually where Eisegesis shows its ugly hind parts. But logical implications nevertheless must wander into areas such as the free will debate. If a position is, by way of logical implication, simply not logical --for example, if a position implies that mere chance determines outcomes-- then it is not the better position.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You are demanding evidence within a context --I.e. the truth of at least, the existence of God, and many agreed-upon attributes between otherwise opponents. That being so, the evidence is scripture --not even practice or experience. Practice and experience may be convincing, but not logical debate-worthy. So are you asking what Scripture supports my position, and what I do with the Scripture they claim supports theirs?

Yes, how do you know what interpretation is correct when two Christians differ on the meaning? Saying my way of determining what is says is correct and theirs is wrong is unconvincing and that is all you have said. If I have a physics book and two people interpret the law of gravity differently we can determine who is correct based on experimentation. Not so for the bible.

There are also debates between those Christians who deny the common belief in the authority of Scripture. Those debates often swing into simple logic, math, and the hard sciences. These are easier, because people are not so quick to fall into spiritual/emotional indigestion over use of Scripture that implies things to them, heretical.

What science confirms the resurrection?

So what sort of evidence do you want, to support my use of Scripture as opposed theirs?

I have no idea. Before you just go to the "well then how can i provide it to you" , remember it is not my problem. If you want your interpretation to be believed you need to demonstrate it is correct. How you do that is not my problem. I can't possibly know what evidence I need to believe you since I don't know all the evidence that is out there. I can evaluate any evidence you have to see if it is convincing.

I just finished telling you, nobody has THE correct interpretation, but God. The best we have is the most accurate use of the Scripture, compared to the opposition or to inanity.

How do you know what is the most accurate interpretation then?

Context, small and large, is a major part of good hermeneutics. So is language theory, and the particular original language, and many, many other things. Usually, logical implications of claims to meaning are more stridently brought to mind than the rest of hermeneutics, and this is usually where Eisegesis shows its ugly hind parts. But logical implications nevertheless must wander into areas such as the free will debate. If a position is, by way of logical implication, simply not logical --for example, if a position implies that mere chance determines outcomes-- then it is not the better position.

Ok. This is a good start. How do you apply this with the salvation by works or grace debate?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, how do you know what interpretation is correct when two Christians differ on the meaning? Saying my way of determining what is says is correct and theirs is wrong is unconvincing and that is all you have said. If I have a physics book and two people interpret the law of gravity differently we can determine who is correct based on experimentation. Not so for the bible.

I didn't even say my way is correct. I only said it seems to me better than theirs.

If it is not an argument by way of evidence, then it is considered a matter of opinion. Actually, even when there is evidence, after assuming for example, the authority of scripture --evidence, such as, what Scripture says-- it is still a matter of opinion as far as the different parties are concerned --each sure the other is wrong. All I'm left with is hermeneutics, practice and experience. And within practice and experience is of course, faith and the witness of the Holy Spirit in regards to false teaching (haha, not to mention all sorts of subjective feelings by way of bias).

What science confirms the resurrection?

I don't know. Haven't gone very far into that. I wouldn't consider that to be something that I care to prove. I can see the reasons it is necessary, and the possibility of it, but the way to convince someone else who doesn't believe it is beyond me.

I have no idea. Before you just go to the "well then how can i provide it to you" , remember it is not my problem. If you want your interpretation to be believed you need to demonstrate it is correct. How you do that is not my problem. I can't possibly know what evidence I need to believe you since I don't know all the evidence that is out there. I can evaluate any evidence you have to see if it is convincing.

I don't care to convince you, beyond telling you why I believe what I do. I care to defend, demonstrate or define my positions the best I can, and leave it there.

How do you know what is the most accurate interpretation then?

Because it is the most logical and sensible and [apparently] Scriptural.

Ok. This is a good start. How do you apply this with the salvation by works or grace debate?

Depends on whether the person accepts the authority of Scripture. If they do, good hermeneutics (logic included) reveals many things that are usually by a poor opponent either scoffed at or outright denied without reason or by way of supposed logical contradiction with other Scripture. Short of that mere logic may suffice. The Salvation by Works crowd claim injustice and insincerity and a few other things if there is no uncaused free will. They do this without even realizing they have joined the side of salvation by works, since according to scripture they know salvation is by grace through faith. Logic shows (if one believes in the authority of scripture) that one's faith is also the gift of God, yet they insist it is man-produced. Further, they accept that no man is better in and of himself than another, yet somehow one chooses right and another wrong, without explanation, except 'by mere chance' which is a logical fail, not to mention that to say that, also denies autonomy of the believer.

But I would have to continue into that debate to explain more "how I apply this".