I attended a church many years ago and the Pastor was well-educated, articulate, extremely intelligent, gifted at public speaking, had a sense of humor, extremely arrogant, and perhaps a wee bit egocentric. He preached Paul's Gospel. Years later I found out he was a Calvinist, however, he was teaching in a non-Calvinist church. How he was able to justify that, is beyond my imagination. He later went on to be the President of a Christian University that was connected to that same church I attended. He was civil and mannerly, however, he came off as being somewhat pretentious.
Omniscience means fatalism.
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
Highly educated people do seem to be drawn to Calvinism. It's been my experience that such folks (for the most part) have strong personalities, unflinching in their beliefs, will not compromise in any given discussion, rather angry, pretentious, above it all, and can be prone to being a bit condescending to others. Perhaps it just comes with the territory?
Lon
Well-known member
While this does apply to ownership, specifically of an ox, I'm not sure it can be applied to a child who is violent, nor that it can stretch further to God. While some knowledge may implicate people, it isn't an automatic guilt by association, and especially not where God is concerned.
Foreknowledge does not always nor by necessity equate to culpable guilt. In your ox case, the problem is the 'ox that gores' should have already been destroyed. The problem is further exacerbated when the owner 1) does not destroy the ox, and 2) that it does the very thing again. A human life is and should be more important to the owner than his aggressive ox.
To me? Like blaming Henry Ford for motor deaths (or Chrysler, etc.). Motor deaths are assured and we don't have foreknowledge, just statistical analysis of what is sure to happen to nameless future people, but it IS assured, some of those cars WILL kill. Are we all culpable for deaths then, but supporting the motor industry? Seems to me, the same kind of association here with God. :think:
Regardless if we know names or not, we support AND participate willingly in this industry. Question: Were those involved in the wreck innocent? EITHER of them? They too are willingly driving, even if one is killed by a drunk driver. Aren't we all in on this?
To me? Convenience. We could all be walking or riding horses still. We all decide cars are cool and 'worth the risk and loss.' Again, is 'Ford' responsible then, for what we all are participating in? Perhaps to some degree, but not wholly. It'd be like buying a gun that I knew 1 in a million exploded. If I shoot that gun, if it explodes, it isn't just the manufacturer, it is me too.
It covers a man's temptation to 'keep' his bull and see the bigger picture. "My life is on the line, not just another's."
I'm not following.
I'm not sure man can attribute anything to God regarding guilt or responsibility. We are created beings. Whatever is God's responsibility isn't ours to assign.
:nono: Not 'according to me' but according to your summation and understanding. I 'think' that is what you meant to say here. I don't believe God is guilty of anything and moreso, that I'm but creation and must take my cue for my Creator. He gets to make the rules.
On top of that, every one of us that believe God is omniscient, believe implicitly that God is good and righteous.
Romans 9:14-24 :think:
And? If so? Is there a complaint at that point? Romans 9:21
blackbirdking
New member
Yes; God ordained that I was created in His image and likeness and He ordained that I could choose to do that which He didn't ordain, from the options He has ordained. That is, I can jump off a cliff but I must deal with the law of gravity.
or·dain.
[ôr'dan]
VERB
1.make (someone) a priest or minister; confer holy orders on.
synonyms: confer holy orders on · appoint · induct · install · invest · anoint ·
2.order or decree (something) officially.
"equal punishment was ordained for the two crimes"
synonyms: decree · rule · order · command · enjoin · lay down · set down ·
•(especially of God or fate) prescribe; determine (something).
"the path ordained by God"
synonyms: predetermine · predestine · preordain · foreordain · destine ·
Oh.
What does your "ordain" mean?
Are both options ordained by God?
What do you mean by good and bad? Is it good to be created when your damned?
Are you elect?
Isaiah 44:24-45:25 shows the omniscience of God in determining the events of men.
Isaiah 44:24-28
[24]This is what the lord says— your Redeemer and Creator: “I am the lord, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth?
[25]I expose the false prophets as liars and make fools of fortune-tellers. I cause the wise to give bad advice, thus proving them to be fools.
[26]But I carry out the predictions of my prophets! By them I say to Jerusalem, ‘People will live here again,’ and to the towns of Judah, ‘You will be rebuilt; I will restore all your ruins!’
[27]When I speak to the rivers and say, ‘Dry up!’ they will be dry.
[28]When I say of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd,’ he will certainly do as I say. He will command, ‘Rebuild Jerusalem’; he will say, ‘Restore the Temple.’”
Isaiah 45:1-25
[1]This is what the lord says to Cyrus, his anointed one, whose right hand he will empower. Before him, mighty kings will be paralyzed with fear. Their fortress gates will be opened, never to shut again.
[2]This is what the lord says: “I will go before you, Cyrus, and level the mountains. I will smash down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron.
[3]And I will give you treasures hidden in the darkness— secret riches. I will do this so you may know that I am the lord, the God of Israel, the one who calls you by name.
[4]“And why have I called you for this work? Why did I call you by name when you did not know me? It is for the sake of Jacob my servant, Israel my chosen one.
[5]I am the lord; there is no other God. I have equipped you for battle, though you don’t even know me,
[6]so all the world from east to west will know there is no other God. I am the lord, and there is no other.
[7]I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the lord, am the one who does these things.
[8]“Open up, O heavens, and pour out your righteousness. Let the earth open wide so salvation and righteousness can sprout up together. I, the lord, created them.
[9]“What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you’re doing it wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be?’
[10]How terrible it would be if a newborn baby said to its father, ‘Why was I born?’ or if it said to its mother, ‘Why did you make me this way?’”
[11]This is what the lord says— the Holy One of Israel and your Creator: “Do you question what I do for my children? Do you give me orders about the work of my hands?
[12]I am the one who made the earth and created people to live on it. With my hands I stretched out the heavens. All the stars are at my command.
[13]I will raise up Cyrus to fulfill my righteous purpose, and I will guide his actions. He will restore my city and free my captive people— without seeking a reward! I, the lord of Heaven’s Armies, have spoken!”
[14]This is what the lord says: “You will rule the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans. They will come to you with all their merchandise, and it will all be yours. They will follow you as prisoners in chains. They will fall to their knees in front of you and say, ‘God is with you, and he is the only God. There is no other.’”
[15]Truly, O God of Israel, our Savior, you work in mysterious ways.
[16]All craftsmen who make idols will be humiliated. They will all be disgraced together.
[17]But the lord will save the people of Israel with eternal salvation. Throughout everlasting ages, they will never again be humiliated and disgraced.
[18]For the lord is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am the lord,” he says, “and there is no other.
[19]I publicly proclaim bold promises. I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner. I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me if I could not be found. I, the lord, speak only what is true and declare only what is right.
[20]“Gather together and come, you fugitives from surrounding nations. What fools they are who carry around their wooden idols and pray to gods that cannot save!
[21]Consult together, argue your case. Get together and decide what to say. Who made these things known so long ago? What idol ever told you they would happen? Was it not I, the lord? For there is no other God but me, a righteous God and Savior. There is none but me.
[22]Let all the world look to me for salvation! For I am God; there is no other.
[23]I have sworn by my own name; I have spoken the truth, and I will never go back on my word: Every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will declare allegiance to me.”
[24]The people will declare, “The lord is the source of all my righteousness and strength.” And all who were angry with him will come to him and be ashamed.
[25]In the lord all the generations of Israel will be justified, and in him they will boast.
Isaiah 44:24-28
[24]This is what the lord says— your Redeemer and Creator: “I am the lord, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth?
[25]I expose the false prophets as liars and make fools of fortune-tellers. I cause the wise to give bad advice, thus proving them to be fools.
[26]But I carry out the predictions of my prophets! By them I say to Jerusalem, ‘People will live here again,’ and to the towns of Judah, ‘You will be rebuilt; I will restore all your ruins!’
[27]When I speak to the rivers and say, ‘Dry up!’ they will be dry.
[28]When I say of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd,’ he will certainly do as I say. He will command, ‘Rebuild Jerusalem’; he will say, ‘Restore the Temple.’”
Isaiah 45:1-25
[1]This is what the lord says to Cyrus, his anointed one, whose right hand he will empower. Before him, mighty kings will be paralyzed with fear. Their fortress gates will be opened, never to shut again.
[2]This is what the lord says: “I will go before you, Cyrus, and level the mountains. I will smash down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron.
[3]And I will give you treasures hidden in the darkness— secret riches. I will do this so you may know that I am the lord, the God of Israel, the one who calls you by name.
[4]“And why have I called you for this work? Why did I call you by name when you did not know me? It is for the sake of Jacob my servant, Israel my chosen one.
[5]I am the lord; there is no other God. I have equipped you for battle, though you don’t even know me,
[6]so all the world from east to west will know there is no other God. I am the lord, and there is no other.
[7]I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the lord, am the one who does these things.
[8]“Open up, O heavens, and pour out your righteousness. Let the earth open wide so salvation and righteousness can sprout up together. I, the lord, created them.
[9]“What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you’re doing it wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be?’
[10]How terrible it would be if a newborn baby said to its father, ‘Why was I born?’ or if it said to its mother, ‘Why did you make me this way?’”
[11]This is what the lord says— the Holy One of Israel and your Creator: “Do you question what I do for my children? Do you give me orders about the work of my hands?
[12]I am the one who made the earth and created people to live on it. With my hands I stretched out the heavens. All the stars are at my command.
[13]I will raise up Cyrus to fulfill my righteous purpose, and I will guide his actions. He will restore my city and free my captive people— without seeking a reward! I, the lord of Heaven’s Armies, have spoken!”
[14]This is what the lord says: “You will rule the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans. They will come to you with all their merchandise, and it will all be yours. They will follow you as prisoners in chains. They will fall to their knees in front of you and say, ‘God is with you, and he is the only God. There is no other.’”
[15]Truly, O God of Israel, our Savior, you work in mysterious ways.
[16]All craftsmen who make idols will be humiliated. They will all be disgraced together.
[17]But the lord will save the people of Israel with eternal salvation. Throughout everlasting ages, they will never again be humiliated and disgraced.
[18]For the lord is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am the lord,” he says, “and there is no other.
[19]I publicly proclaim bold promises. I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner. I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me if I could not be found. I, the lord, speak only what is true and declare only what is right.
[20]“Gather together and come, you fugitives from surrounding nations. What fools they are who carry around their wooden idols and pray to gods that cannot save!
[21]Consult together, argue your case. Get together and decide what to say. Who made these things known so long ago? What idol ever told you they would happen? Was it not I, the lord? For there is no other God but me, a righteous God and Savior. There is none but me.
[22]Let all the world look to me for salvation! For I am God; there is no other.
[23]I have sworn by my own name; I have spoken the truth, and I will never go back on my word: Every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will declare allegiance to me.”
[24]The people will declare, “The lord is the source of all my righteousness and strength.” And all who were angry with him will come to him and be ashamed.
[25]In the lord all the generations of Israel will be justified, and in him they will boast.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: I believe you are confusing and equating "volition" with "desire" here. That is what makes you think 'circular' but it isn't. It just needs that bit of correction, I believe, for you to pick up what he is saying here. :e4e:
A bit further discussed on the topic of God's desires vs. volition
Rosenritter
New member
This seems like a shell game. Desire, will, and volition are being swapped around and whenever the heat is on one the other one is swapped into play. May we review this for a moment? Holding fast to this example, I'll remind that the initial statement from AMR was:
"God has no unfulfilled desires."
... for which the counter-example given straight in the language of scripture was:
Hosea 6:6-7 KJV
(6) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
(7) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.
AMR responded that Jesus (God) only desired to proclaim the commandment for mercy and knowledge, but not that he actually desired that the mercy and knowledge of God.
My immediate thought is that went directly against the express and implied meaning of the passage, because he clearly said he desired something which was not received. He didn't say "I desired to command mercy." So I reply by saying this was an artistic dodge, and provided an image of Neo as be bends over backwards to dodge bullets in the Matrix(TM).
AMR replies that this seems like dripping sarcasm and insulting to the cause of Christ, and then gives his rationale again, that:
So in justifying his proof that "God has no unfulfilled desires" not only does he add another contradiction, but what does he give as the reason for his proof? He uses the very same thing he sought to prove, "for" (that means for reason of) "God has no unfulfilled desires."
That's circular reasoning (the proof was identical to the premise.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
| Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. |
All the shuffling in the world of swapping desire and will and volition doesn't change that the thinking required for such acrobatics or artful dodging could be used to prove anything no matter how flawed or false, 2 + 2 = 5 under such logic.
Anyone who reads scripture at its face value can see that God has unfulfilled desires. But it requires a lot of elevated and sophisticated vocabulary to numb our eyes to the point where logical fallacies like circular reasoning can be expected to slip past unchallenged.
Lon
Well-known member
Which sounds circular. Sure.
Let me try.
You: God's desires don't go fulfilled all the time.
AMR: God's desires don't go fulfilled all the time.
You: God's will goes unfulfilled at times.
AMR: God's will is always fulfilled.
For me, James Hilston's post helps with clarity: God has a prescriptive and decretive will, as introduced (more in a bit).
The difference: Is it a shell game?
No, I don't believe so and in fact, would say that we and the Open Theist observe the same thing: God doesn't want Jack the Ripper, yet doesn't remove Jack the Ripper out of existence.
We both agree so there is really no argument and I don't think, a need for frustration either. Rather, we are explaining why this happens but disagree on our respective answers to 'why.' I think the better part of dueling theologies is to understand the other person better. I LOVE btw, that two theologies can and do discuss these matters, very much different from one another, yet able to grasp (and hopefully appreciate) another child of God trying to wrestle and explain the things of God.
Again, it is why I introduced Hilston. AMR believe God has a decretive and prescriptive will. Decretive (decree) happens. Always. Prescriptive (prescription for a malady) is remedial and interactive. Does it go 'unfulfilled?' In-as-much as man does or doesn't follow, the answer would be yes, but it doesn't yet answer regarding God's omniscience nor does it seek to try and answer for God. What I mean is, I can only answer regarding prescriptive will of God, in regards to how it relates to man, because I am 'one of us.' God's ways and thoughts are higher. I realize that gets me and a few others into trouble, but God said it, I didn't. I simply grasp where things stop being mine, my answer, my grasp, and where God's thoughts 'higher than mine (or your's) starts. With prescription, we know, as you've expressed even in scripture, God has told us, that He wants some things that don't happen Example: "...not willing that any should perish." However, we know that people do perish AND we know that whatever God ultimately decides, 'can' happen. That is, you acquiesce that God 'can' ensure all is saved. The Arminian and Open Theist say 'because God values freewill." It doesn't matter the answer, you also are distinguishing, with the Calvinist, that God can make a thing happen (one will that cannot be upset by anybody or anything because God IS able) and God can allow things to happen He doesn't desire.
Now let's look at your next statement:
Question: Is both the Calvinist AND your belief circular and more, the same circular reasoning? Why or why not? This is a great place to have meaning where frustration may have preceded. Explain please why it is or isn't circular, why or how you are different from a Calvinist, etc.
As I said above, I think there is a difference between God's decretive and prescriptive wills. It is a bit of a bummer Hilston's post on this from www.JamesHilston.com got shifted or erased. I think he does a good job explaining the difference. AMR can speak for Himself, but to me, I think the difference between decretive and prescriptive wills is what is spoken of here AND it seems to me, we all understand this to some degree, because it is spoken of in Open Theist circles too. In the thread I gave, one example was Jack the Ripper. Even in Open Theism, God knows, at the time Jack is killing, and can stop the killing. Depending on how you phrase it, God desires the killing to not take place, yet something else allows it to happen. Is AMR right? Does God's desire come into play? Is it His desire, or an acted upon desire, that stops the killing? Has God ever stopped a killing in history before? (yes) Why? Why not again? Or always?
Often, a thread like this, for me, becomes more meaningful because it forces us to ask really important questions and better yet, seek God and His word for answers. It is, imho, the best kind of service we can render to one another :e4e:
Rosenritter
New member
Change that to "God doesn't remove Jack the Ripper out of existence yet" andand I can agree with that statement.
Try me then please. Give me whatever question(s) here and let's see if my answers fall prey to circular reasoning, but I have a different starting premise than AMR: God does not get everything that he desires.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Two things come to mind.
The first is that I have demonstrated from didactic Scripture passages that God has no unfulfilled desires. You are overlooking my actual arguments.
The second is that arguing in a circle, when and if I leverage it, which I have not in this instance, is inevitable.
How do we know Scripture is the infallible word of God?
Because Scripture says so.
Q.E.D.
If we must resort to methods outside of Scripture to prove its veracity we have implicitly denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture. This line of argumentation is an implicit denial of infallible inspiration because it is a basically rationalistic approach to Scripture; that is, it is an effort to place Scripture under the judgment of our own minds. It is an effort to subject Scripture's own claims to our rational scrutiny and prove by means of rationalistic argumentation that which Scripture actually itself claims for itself.
If this approach is consistently followed, the results will be that we often find the evidence less than satisfactory, and we have entered the morass of higher and destructive criticism.
No matter how we argue on matters of Scripture, ultimately we argue in a circle, for eventually we arrive at "God said it" and we rightly respond, not with the usually heard, "I believe it" but rather with "That settles it."
Consider the argument:
God has all the virtues.
Therefore, God is benevolent.
Given your response, it appears you will claim that the argument above begs the question, meaning that the premise, that God has all the virtues, assumes the conclusion, that God is benevolent.
But what is wrong with that? Why is it a fault or error in the argument?
There are only two proper ways of condemning an argument: because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or because the premises are demonstrated to be not acceptable to the person to whom the argument was directed. Begging the question does not fit into either category, thus it is not a proper criticism of an argument.
Begging the question has traditionally been thought to be a fallacy because it is a breaking of the rules of the old-fashioned game of elenchus (two-person contestive question-reply argumentation as found in Aristotle). Each participant has a conclusion (question) to be proved, and one of the rules was that a question must not directly ask for conclusion. This rule made sense within the framework of the game of elenchus, but argumentation on a serious matter is "trying to get at the truth, to know something". That is what we are doing herein.
The prohibition of begging the question is not a law of logic, but only the rule of an old-fashioned competitive game. To appeal to a prohibition of arguing in a circle when engaged in the search for truth is as irrelevant as to obey the Queensbury rules when attacked by a murderer. The fallacy of begging the question has no relevance to any knowledge-seeking inquiry into the truth of a matter, as a proper criticism or alleged fallacy of argument.
Bottom line: all men argue in a circle of presuppositions, just make sure yours are Biblical ones.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This is not true at all. The fact that Calvinists are informed is more likely because they are members of Reformed Baptist or conservative Presbyterian churches that all have confessional bases. These historical confessions summarize the teachings of Scripture and the church practices proper instruction of its members.
Sadly, what one finds in not a few churches today is absence of any formal statements "what we believe" other than "We believe the Bible." The person attending such churches will over time come to find that there are plenty of unwritten belief systems at play, some they will stumble over at their peril and ridicule "Well we don't believe that." Too bad for this hapless fellow that the church did not take the time to confess in writing what they believe beforehand. All of which is contrary to Scripture's teachings that we are to confess the sound patterns of Scripture.
2 Timothy 1:13 states, "Hold fast the form of sound words {nb: the patterns}, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus."
2 Tim 2:2 continues, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Confessional statements are a testimony of the church's belief to the world; they offer a summation of Christian doctrine for the instruction of the faithful; and they form a bulwark against the incursion of error by providing a standard of orthodoxy and a test for office-bearers. In these ways these statements also serve to protect and to foster the bond of Christian fellowship as a unity of faith and doctrine, of mind and conviction, and not merely of organization or sentiment.
To claim that Reformed or Calvinist folk tend to be more well-educated is to necessarily imply that non-Calvinists tend to be less well-educated. It also implies the non-Calvinist has no interest in becoming more educated about what they hold dear. Of course, this is manifest nonsense and your observations are but a claim to poison to well of informed discussion on important topics of the faith.
AMR
One of the travesties of Calvinism is, it takes the simplicity of Paul's Gospel (the Gospel of the grace of God) and uses a 'false doctrine' to make the Gospel more complicated than it is. When a Calvinist shares the Gospel with an unbeliever, does the Calvinist bring up the 'theory' of predestination and the Elect? Or, do they avoid discussing that part of their doctrine, for fear it will hinder their testimony of faith? After all, if you tell an unbeliever that they may or may not be one of the elect, that would tend to confuse the listener, would it not?
I would like to know if the Calvinist (Reformed) tend to believe that if one is of the 'Elect,' they will respond to the hearing of the Gospel and if they are not one of the 'Elect' they will NOT respond? Is that HOW the Calvinist determines if such a person is of the 'Elect?' How does a Calvinist church determine who is of the 'Elect' and who is not? Are there any criteria by which they make a determination?
So, in a nut shell, Calvinism must be true because if it isn't then we must concede that things happen that God doesn't want to happen.
In other words, Calvinism must be true because if it isn't then we must concede that God doesn't meticulously control everything that happens and people have an actual free will.
In other words, Calvinism must be true because if it isn't then we must concede that Open Theism is true.
In other words, My side of the debate must be true because if it isn't then we must concede that my opponent's position is true!
How is it possible that people can be blind to such an obvious logical error? AMR has basically just told you that Calvinism must be true because otherwise we have to through out Calvinism. Well, no duh! If Calvinism is false then we have free will and so does God and God doesn't always get what He wants and things happen that He doesn't like.
Has anyone here ever read the Bible? Can anyone think of even one single case where God was displeased about something that had happened? Seems like I recall at least a couple of times where God killed people because they had rebelled. Wasn't there some episode where an angle lead some sort of rebellion against God that led God to prepare a whole lake of fire?
Questions AMR will not answer....
Does God desire for people to kill their children in religious ceremonies?
Does God desire for people to worship Satan?
Does God desire for people to worship trees or rocks or dirt?
Does God desire for governing officials to take bribes?
Does God desire for divorce to be easy and common?
Have any of those thing ever happened?
(I could have listed dozens of things (murder, rape, child molestation, homosexuality, incest, beastiality, necrophilia, theft, burglary, assault, lying, etc., etc., etc.) by the way.)
Clete
I love your LOGICAL approach, it's rather refreshing. No matter how hard I look at Calvinism, I can't seem to find ANY logic or reason in it. I wonder why? :think:
Maybe you're trying to climb a mountain in loafers.
And that's why I frequently use the (either) and why I almost always regret it when I don't.Maybe you're the LOAFER that won't try and climb a mountain?
lain:That was one half of the inference, GM. The other going to how equipped one might be.
Man...what are the odds JR doesn't find the bonus funny now.
Rosenritter
New member
No, you did not properly demonstrate as such. You did use arguments with so many words that it becomes unpractical to respond to all at once, lest everyone's eyes glaze over at the length of the response. I have seized hold of the easiest point to see and address. If circular logic is being used then all else goes out the window.
No, that would be an example of fallacious circular reasoning. We know the scripture is infallible because we accept this in faith. It would be impossible to test each and every aspect revealed and yet to be revealed especially before it happens. We may assume the premise and and then fairly try our best to see if it does fail, and failing failure, we have evidence that our faith is not irrational or irresponsible, and we proceed with evidence of things not seen.
But saying that the bible is infallible and then using the claim of infallibility from bible as proof IS an example of circular logic. If you've been accepting circular logic with the motto of "the ends justifies the means" then that is a mistake.
The summary? We should not even consider other issues when circular reasoning is defended upon the claim of necessity.
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
When people join churches and are then required to pledge an allegiance to a document that then stands as the only accepted standard by which to interpret the scriptures, that is in danger of being a form of idolatry, exchanging the holy that is given by God and putting in its place a man-made image that replaces the scriptures for practical purposes.
And I have seen this method in action, when the Statement of Beliefs contained a statement in error (when compared to the scripture) and a separate statement that all doctrine must be derived from the scripture. The practical result was when confronted with the error, a falling back to repeated chant of "We believe our Confession of Faith" rather than to recognize that even by its own definition, it only had authority if it was first in line with the scripture.
Perhaps it may have been other items in the contract of that church that influenced that style of response, such as that they could lose their jobs and the church could be stripped of its property if they came into offense of higher-ups within that church system. The ultimate deciding factor of truth was defined as that determined by a ruling committee.
By the way, this was not a Calvinist church in my example, rather an example of how this comes into play if we commit to agree to obey men rather than God. I think it's better to avoid such a pledge all together.
Last edited: