tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post8157763203443174571..comments2024-03-28T00:32:20.743-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: Jesus and ReasonDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-25122091928444309682013-08-31T14:03:29.292-07:002013-08-31T14:03:29.292-07:00Actually Dan, what is ironic is that you rely sole...Actually Dan, what is ironic is that you rely solely on Scripture to deny Sola Scriptura. It's quite funny.<br /><br />I would say, however, that it is NOT "reading into Scripture" to suggest a principle taught by Scripture. That we put a name to that principle is not a matter of reading anything into Scripture but merely labeling a principle. Thus, we don't need to see mention of the Holy Trinity, for example, to believe Scripture teaches us of the Trinity. <br /><br />So your ironic argument supports the position rather than denies or contradicts it.<br /><br />Look at the passage to which you refer in your last comment. <br /><br />1. Are you suggesting that maybe Paul was talking about the sports pages of the local newspaper? Are you suggesting that he was referring to anything other than what was the recorded teachings of the faith at that time?<br /><br />2. What other possible explanation could exist for "do not go beyond what is written" other than the superior authority of what is written? And this is spoken by a guy with a history of direct contact with Christ!<br /><br />3. There is no "reading into" attempted. There is merely the recognition of the implications any encouragement to "not go beyond what is written" carries. So many verses speaking in such terms, so many showing a referring to "what is written" (such as by Christ Himself) as a means by which one find a basis for belief and behavior, the primacy of Scripture, as well as Its own view of such is self-evident.<br /><br />4. Once again we see it is you who reads into Scripture what isn't explicitly there. <br /><br />4A. Paul is not addressing false teachers/bad teachers here. There is nothing describing Apollos as either. The suggestion is that there are differences in how Apollos and Paul teach (not <i>what</i>) and that some people follow one or the other as if one is better to follow. He is telling them they are to regard each of them as servants of Christ and the focus should be on what is written, not on who is teaching what is written.<br /><br />4C As Paul is talking about a person (himself and/or Apollos---or even teachers of the Gospel in general for that matter), he is saying judge nothing about such people. This is evident when he refers to God exposing the motives of men's hearts. He's not talking about what it being taught by such people, so that when he gets to the part about going beyond what is written, it is a means by which one can determine the truth and/or accuracy of the teaching. The focus should be on the teaching, not the teacher.<br /><br />4D If one is not going beyond what is written, it won't matter from whom one learns. What is written is what is important. Indeed, if anything, this is a good argument against denominations as the same Book used by all is what is important. And again, Paul is talking about the motives of the teachers that God will make clear. He's not talking about Scripture when he says that. The ludicrous part of your position is that you even provide the verse that says this very thing, yet you totally misrepresent it.<br /><br /><i>"But does Paul anywhere say something that MUST be taken to mean SS?"</i><br /><br />Yes, by saying don't go beyond what is written as preferable to the teacher as a source, he's putting the written word as a higher authority. This passage proves the point rather well the more we break it down. Thanks for the help.<br /><br />All presumptions regarding this passage has been coming from you. I'm simply repeating what the passage is saying.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-16722246672425329962013-08-30T15:44:01.899-07:002013-08-30T15:44:01.899-07:00Marshall, I've already dealt with this passage...Marshall, I've already dealt with this passage/question in the previous post...<br /><br /><i>verses that contain words such as "do not go beyond what is written" do indeed stand as solid evidence for the principle of SS. If "do not go beyond what is written" suggest something other than the importance of Scripture for understanding and revelation, what alternative explanation for that phrase, and those like it, can you offer? If it could mean something else, what is it that you think it could mean, and how do you support the possibility?</i><br /><br />1. The TEXT does not say, "Do not go beyond what is written in Scripture..." Just "do not go beyond what is written..."<br /><br />What evidence is there that Paul is speaking of Scripture there?<br /><br />2. EVEN IF Paul is speaking of Scripture, "Do not go beyond these teachings in Scripture..." does not equate to "Scripture should have prime 'deciding factor' in discussing disagreements..."<br /><br />3. What is ironic, is the suggestion that this text MUST mean "Scripture is SS" is "going BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN..." you are reading into the text what is not there. If nothing else, this text teaches us NOT TO DO just what you're doing.<br /><br />That you miss this meaning is irony, indeed.<br /><br />4. What else could it mean?<br /><br />A. Paul is addressing an apparent problem of false teachings/bad teachers in the early church.<br /><br />B. Paul makes clear that he does not judge himself, but it is THE LORD who will appraise him/us. Not somebody's interpretation of scripture, not some church group or denomination or splinter faction, but GOD.<br /><br />C. Paul offers this teaching, which might be worth some discussion...<br /><br /><i>Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart.</i><br /><br />In these debates of non-provables and extrabiblicals, are we to "judge nothing" positively until we hear directly from God? Sounds like that might be Paul's implication (although, we'd have to ask him/God, to be sure... that being the nature of implications...)<br /><br />D. Paul says, in context...<br /><br /><i>so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.</i><br /><br />...explaining his intent, "That you may not be puffed up in following this person or that person..." and what is different from "this person" and "that person..."? Their INTERPRETATIONS and TEACHINGS. But those are their OWN personal opinions and personal opinions are NOTHING to be puffed up over. Rather, we should wait for God to make these things clear, rather than divide into factions.<br /><br />...This seems to me to be the idea Paul is speaking of here, not SS. I simply see nothing that suggest Paul is saying, "But in matters of disagreement, let the Bible be the 'decider' of matters..." Rather, he seems to be saying, "We WILL have disagreements... We ARE having disagreements, but don't get puffed up over your chosen teacher/interpretation... GOD will decide, not our interpretations of Scripture...<br /><br />Does Paul clearly teach the IMPORTANCE of Scripture? Sure! But does Paul anywhere say something that MUST be taken to mean SS?<br /><br />No, I don't think so. I just don't think it's there and this verse does not prove it.<br /><br />COULD one read INTO the verse such support? Sure, if one makes some presumptions that aren't in the text. But I just don't think it demands that interpretation at all.<br /><br />And since I think I'm holding the more rational and biblical interpretation, is there any reason I should give up what SEEMS most rational and biblical to me?<br /><br />None that I've seen you cite, nothing beyond, "Well, it don't seem that way to ME!"Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81890126765464439612013-08-30T14:58:15.251-07:002013-08-30T14:58:15.251-07:00"Regardless, me looking at the text and notin...<i>"Regardless, me looking at the text and noting that factually, it isn't there, does not depend upon an SS belief on my part. Of course it doesn't. How could it?"</i><br /><br />First of all, you can only say "factually, it isn't there" if by saying so you are referring to the principle of SS not expressly mentioned anywhere in Scripture. I don't know that either of us, or Stan, or Augustine ever hinted at that possibility. If that is your position, we've wasted all sorts of time. <br /><br />But your original question did not ask for that. It asked for Scriptural evidence for SS. Bubba and I provided numerous verses that, by their number, points to the authority of Scripture as the prime source of knowledge of God. Jesus referred to it in that way, even while being the ultimate source Himself. His words speak of it as what the Jews should have been studying for knowledge and revelation. That He and/or His prophets and apostle indeed trumped Scripture, one would be hard pressed to imagine that was not a given while He referred to Scripture.<br /><br />Secondly, verses that contain words such as "do not go beyond what is written" do indeed stand as solid evidence for the principle of SS. If "do not go beyond what is written" suggest something other than the importance of Scripture for understanding and revelation, what alternative explanation for that phrase, and those like it, can you offer? If it <i>could</i> mean something else, what is it that you think it could mean, and how do you support the possibility?<br /><br />The above shows that our disagreeing is not, nor has it ever been, in question. "This is how it sounds to me" requires an explanation. You offer next to nothing, if anything at all. <br /><br />Conversely, when you offer an opinion with which we disagree, we provide all sorts of Scriptural backing, as well as explanations for why that backing is sound. <br /><br />Reasoning requires dealing with the words and verses as they stand. I go back to my stop sign example. What else could a sign bearing the word "stop" mean, but to stop? There is nothing that allows for any alternative explanation. One cannot reason by what it doesn't say to arrive at a conclusion that the verse in question doesn't imply. <br /><br />Gotta go.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81837683460775978902013-08-30T07:33:32.075-07:002013-08-30T07:33:32.075-07:00Yes, FINALLY, you directly answered "on what ...Yes, FINALLY, you directly answered "on what basis" and you did so correctly. Why that was so hard, I don't know.<br /><br />And yes, it IS a matter of, as you say...<br /><br /><i>Whether you should or not would be on the basis of sound reasoning</i><br /><br />That is, we SHOULD make our decisions based on what seems to be the most sound reasoning. YOU have done so, you've reached your conclusion based on what seems to be the most sound reasoning TO YOU. So have I. We disagree on what is most reasonable, but that's okay. That happens.<br /><br />The point there is that WE are deciding for ourselves (as it should be, right?) what is most reasonable - we HAVE to do this if we are rational adults and want to behave as such. It is YOUR conclusion that these texts you cite (somehow) hint at SS enough that it seems compelling to you. It is MY conclusion that what you're reading into the text simply is not there.<br /><br />We can hear from God eventually if either of us understood it correctly, but in the meantime, WE are acting on OUR best understanding. It's not a matter of you speaking for God or ME speaking for God, we're both offering OUR OWN best understanding.<br /><br />From there we can continue as respectful, rational adults acting based on a mutual difference of opinion. As it should be.<br /><br />Just one last thing as to your argument, such as it is. You say...<br /><br /><i>If your argument hinges upon Scripture not referring to itself in that manner (which the couple dozen verses offered contradict), you cannot make that argument without referring to Scripture and its authority. </i><br /><br />? Do you know that this makes no sense. I CAN and HAVE made the argument that "The extrabiblical conclusion you are reaching is NOT in the text itself, either literally or metaphorically, nor can we reasonably infer it as a given..." without considering Scripture as SS. I'm just stating an observable fact.<br /><br />Now, you can reason BEYOND Scripture, "Well, no it does not literally say that, but when it says X, that COULD fit with the notion of SS..." but you can not and have not pointed to anything that demands it as the one and only or even the likely explanation. <br /><br />You simply haven't.<br /><br />Regardless, me looking at the text and noting that factually, it isn't there, does not depend upon an SS belief on my part. Of course it doesn't. How could it?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-18945316095083599942013-08-30T07:00:49.662-07:002013-08-30T07:00:49.662-07:00Of course, whether you change your position or not...Of course, whether you change your position or not is strictly up to you. Whether you should or not would be on the basis of sound reasoning against which you have not laid anything other than "not compelling" or "that might be your hunch" or "I don't buy it". None of these provides anything of substance by which the other side might consider to amend or adjust <i>their</i> position. When you fall back on a tactic such as questioning whether a word or set of words doesn't necessarily have to mean what we put forth as really the only possible meaning, you are merely using the grade school "nuh uh" argument. When we posit that a word or set of words must or can only mean that which we argue, it is usually on the basis of common understanding of those words, together with the elimination of any other possibility based on the best translations of the original language. It is also based on the totality of all verses and passages that touch on the same subject and how they all point to the same meaning.<br /><br />We can also point to 2000 years of understanding of a given issue or topic as a basis for our position should an issue have been addressed in all that time. To change such understanding requires and DEMANDS more than just a hunch by modern progressives who don't like the implications of the traditional position. It requires some solid and substantial evidence upon which the shift in understanding can't help but be pulled away from what had been. <br /><br />In considering the issues about which we've discussed and debated over the years, there are clearly far more examples of you inputting meaning that doesn't exist into Scripture with very little in the way of providing a basis upon which anyone else should come to believe the same way. Regardless of how much you claim to study and love Scripture, your conclusions don't reflect that at all.<br /><br />As to self-defeating arguments, I think I've shown quite clearly that arguing against SS is exactly that. If your argument hinges upon Scripture not referring to itself in that manner (which the couple dozen verses offered contradict), you cannot make that argument without referring to Scripture and its authority. <br /><br />So, the "on what basis" question has been answered in several ways often enough now where you lack of satisfaction on the issue again suggests sheer denial on your part, rather than a reasoned and well formulated argument that would persuade anybody but yourself.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-46143788853343946022013-08-30T00:10:20.434-07:002013-08-30T00:10:20.434-07:00So, Marshall, once again...
ON WHAT BASIS would I...So, Marshall, once again...<br /><br /><b>ON WHAT BASIS would I abandon what seems most biblical and most rational to me? On whose authority would I give up these convictions?</b><br /><br />You go on to cite my OWN opinion (reminding you that MY opinion is that I don't find the evidence in the text) in support of the claim that I don't believe is found in the text.<br /><br />Am I missing something?<br /><br />What is your direct answer to that question?<br /><br />You want me to change my position, being a rational human being who loves the Bible's teachings, I HAVE to know, "ON WHAT BASIS would I abandon what the text seems to say (or not say) to me?"<br /><br />Answer it or move on in defeat (because, as I stated right off the bat, the argument is self-defeating.)Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-53981075895016964522013-08-29T22:48:49.017-07:002013-08-29T22:48:49.017-07:00For your fifth:
"I honestly believe that my ...For your fifth:<br /><br /><i>"I honestly believe that my positions are both the most reasonable and the most biblical out there. Otherwise, I wouldn't believe them, right?"</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. Based on the years of dealing with you on the blogs, the possibility that you believe what you believe because you like what you believe better than what you should believe is more than merely likely. It seems the <i>only</i> possibility. <br /><br />I say this because of how poorly you defend your positions and beliefs, as well as how poorly (even MORE poorly) you argue against the positions and beliefs of those with whom you disagree. The standards you demand of others are not followed by you, as has been pointed out by several visitors and opponents. As I mentioned earlier, your arguments about interpretations often call to mind the Clinton quibbling over the definition of "is". What passes for reason and logic in your interpretations, explanations and understandings leaves a great deal to be desired. <br /><br />I have no problem with someone holding to positions I find problematic. Pardon my suspicions when those positions are so poorly defended.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-88025197867514752292013-08-29T22:39:08.532-07:002013-08-29T22:39:08.532-07:00Your third comment continues with the false notion...Your third comment continues with the false notion that the Bible doesn't tell us about itself in the manner at issue. The many verses offered disagree, some better than others, but all point to the primacy of Scripture over anything else now that Jesus, the apostle and prophets no longer walk among us. <br /><br />Let's look at your little hypothetical. There could be a billion different interpretations. So what? Are they not all based on <i>someone's</i> reliance on Scripture? Isn't each person offering an interpretation looking first to what Scripture says about any given topic or issue? What does that <i>imply</i> to you? How can you not <i>infer</i> that each person is indeed regarding Scripture as the sole source of knowledge in coming to each interpretation? They are all putting into practice the concept of SS. You do it yourself even though you come up with goofy interpretations. You do it by insisting that our position isn't in the Bible. You obviously must use the Bible as a very important source for Christian knowledge to take the position that it should matter that it isn't in the Bible (even though we've shown it is).<br /><br />You finish the third and continue the fourth with your question that you think matters more than it does: On whose authority? <br /><br />For SS, on yours, on Alan's, on Calvin's and Wesley's, as well as on Christ's and Paul's and the various other verses in Scripture that say so. All refer to Scripture to get their answers regardless of whether or not those answers agree. Note that SS does not require that we all "see" the same things in Scripture. You don't want to be mixing arguments here. The whole thing is over whether or not Scripture supports the concept of SS. We've shown it does and you and all the other mentioned agree by virtue of your reliance on the Bible to say it doesn't. It's a no-win for you. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-37057067390214427602013-08-29T22:22:45.634-07:002013-08-29T22:22:45.634-07:00Five posted comments that fail to overcome the wei...Five posted comments that fail to overcome the weight of logic and evidence provided by Bubba and myself.<br /><br />First comment:<br /><br />No class on the difference between "imply" and "infer" was necessary. But it is not the least bit inappropriate to say that a text or its author is implying one thing or another. Indeed, the phrase, "the implications of" such and such is very much commonly used to suggest the meaning of both spoken and written words (as well as actions). This is no big deal and that whole "class" was a waste of time. <br /><br />It was also a waste if your intention was to further support your position that our evidence from Scripture can be easily dismissed or denied in favor of some as yet unsupported alternative. <br /><br />The implication of close to two dozen verses provided by Bubba and myself (more than one dozen for sure) is that your original question can be answered in the affirmative, that the Bible does suggest the authority of itself that satisfies the concept of "sola scriptura". <br /><br />Comment the second:<br /><br />"Good enough" ain't good enough for you? "More likely than not" not likely enough for you? La-dee-freakin'-DAH! <br /><br />Without a doubt, you have hung your hat on far less in defending your positions over the years. You still do in denying ours here. "More likely than not" has no bearing on the strength of the actual verses used. Each of them, certainly most of them, speak of using "what is written" as a solid and reliable source for knowledge about what has been revealed by God in all His many ways. Indeed, there are far more verses that support the SS position than there are for the absolute sinfulness of all homosexual relations. I wonder just how many verses you need to "infer" a truth about anything? With the strength of the numbers of verses regarding "what is written", the primacy of Scripture as our source of knowledge in a world without Jesus, the prophets or apostles walking among us is without question. If you don't find the numbers compelling enough for your, the problem is on you, not us or Scripture itself. So let me restate my position so as to be more clear: Due to the number of verses offered in evidence, all speaking of "what is written" as being of great importance for us to learn about God, it is far more than merely likely that Scripture speaks of itself in terms that align with SS. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-53988085301094200742013-08-27T18:50:26.490-07:002013-08-27T18:50:26.490-07:00Or, put it in yet another way: I honestly believe ...Or, put it in yet another way: I honestly believe that my positions are both the most reasonable and the most biblical out there. Otherwise, I wouldn't believe them, right?<br /><br />So, I've studied Scripture, I've prayerfully reasoned through it and reached a conclusion. Other people have done the same and reached a different conclusion. I've listened to their reasoning and don't find their case compelling at all, and still find my case compelling.<br /><br />ON WHAT BASIS would I abandon what seems most biblical and most rational to me? On whose authority would I give up these convictions?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-9985885707484176672013-08-27T15:13:59.034-07:002013-08-27T15:13:59.034-07:00Consider an example outside of our discussion: The...Consider an example outside of our discussion: The disagreement between John Wesley and John Calvin. One source notes at least a few differences, including the idea of predestination...<br /><br /><i>Calvin and Luther argue that God takes the initiative to save by arbitrarily selecting certain people for salvation, and relegating the rest to damnation. Only those who have been elected for salvation can be converted. <br /><br />Salvation is not available or possible to all. Here John Wesley goes in a fundamentally different direction than Calvin and Luther. <br /><br />First, Wesley states that God takes the initiative in saving human beings through the gift of prevenient grace given to every person, enabling the possibility for anyone to be saved. Thus Wesley displaces predestination with prevenient grace which enables a person to respond when God’s saving grace comes.</i><br /><br />Two believers, respected theologians in most evangelical circles (not anabaptist for Calvin, though, given his support for persecution of Other Christians... but that's an aside...). BOTH are looking at Scripture as a guide. BOTH reach conclusions that are extrabiblical (ie, like SS, these doctrines are not taught directly, rather some believers INFER them).<br /><br />Calvin decided that God "predestines" those who would be saved and damns the rest.<br /><br />Wesley disagreed.<br /><br />ON WHAT BASIS would we choose one "side" or the other in this discussion? <br /><br />ON WHAT BASIS would we make (or not make) this belief an "essential to Christianity" belief?<br /><br />Important questions, begging to be answered.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-20532902475570208622013-08-27T12:23:24.151-07:002013-08-27T12:23:24.151-07:00Okay, with that reminder of English usage of words...Okay, with that reminder of English usage of words and the other comment, moving back to the question in question.<br /><br />Bubba, you said...<br /><br /><i> I defer to the Creator, who I believe revealed Himself first as Yahweh and supremely as Jesus Christ, and I defer to the prophets and apostles who Christ Himself endorsed.</i><br /><br />Me, too. This is not the question. We ALL are striving to defer to God's Will.<br /><br />You go on to say...<br /><br /><i>Because Christ is at the Father's right hand and we do not enjoy the presence of any living prophet or apostle, I thus defer to the written record of the teachings of the prophets and apostles -- the Bible, for which there is no real rival.</i><br /><br />And that is some fine, personal reasoning. It isn't a bad rational approach to the problem of "How do we know?" and I'm not criticizing the opinion. It may well be worth exploring, as far as opinions go.<br /><br />MY point, though, is that the Bible does not tell us this and IF the Bible is your source for ultimate interpretations and answers to questions, then one can't really say, "For the Bible tells me so." This is, by definition, extrabiblical reasoning. And that is okay, I have no problem with that. It may not even be a bad personal opinion to hold.<br /><br />But it's not a biblical opinion.<br /><br />But I've said that.<br /><br />Let me try it this way:<br /><br />Let's say there are 1,000 Questions we might have about following God and Christianity. Those questions might include "Does God have a triune nature?" "Did Mary have to be a virgin?" "Is it okay to invest our money?" "Is polygamy okay?" "Does the Bible describe salvation by grace, by works, by atonement... what is the best understanding of salvation?..." Questions of that nature.<br /><br />And, from a group of Christians, we might find 3,000 interpretations (more likely, 300,000) of the Bible on these various topics.<br /><br />Now, we ALL are seeking to defer to God's Will. We ALL are using the Bible as an important source for understanding, teaching, direction, etc. We ALL are serious about finding the good and right answers.<br /><br />On what basis do we say, "Of the TEN answers we had for the Triune nature of God, THIS is the one acceptable answer for the Church? Of the FIVE answers about investing, THIS is the one acceptable answer for the Church..." etc. <br /><br />HOW do we decide, "Of these various answers, here are the best answers for 1,000 of these questions. For 2,000 of these questions, it is acceptable to have no clear, one cut answer..."?<br /><br />Beyond that, HOW do we decide "Of the 1,000 'approved answers' THESE 500 are essentials to Christianity. The others are important, but not essential..."?<br /><br />Early on, Alan gave what I believe to be the right answer: The Bible doesn't tell us. And we protestats have no Pope to decide for us. WE Humans - usually in sub-groups denominations) have collectively decided and we accept it by faith (or not) if we agree with that particular group of humans..."<br /><br />But if you don't think that it's a human answer, then what IS the answer to "HOW do we decide which are the 'Right' answers?" and "How do we decide which of these tenets are essential and which are not?"<br /><br />On what basis? On whose authority?<br /><br />It's an important and reasonable question to answer.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-61707976833722087702013-08-27T12:05:18.123-07:002013-08-27T12:05:18.123-07:00A couple more comments on a couple more comments.....A couple more comments on a couple more comments...<br /><br />Bubba has said...<br /><br /><i>In reading recipes and furniture instructions, at some point I accept as an unproven (and unprovable) assertion that my interpretation is -- in the absence of a better alternative -- good enough, and I act on my interpretation...</i><br /><br />And Marshall has said...<br /><br /><i>All the examples herein provided, in total, lead to the conclusion that SS is far more likely than not. </i><br /><br />"Good enough" and "more likely than not" are not especially compelling places to stand. That sounds like you're saying, "eh, seems reasonable enough to me... I'll take that explanation until I hear a better one..." Which is fine. I think there are a great many opinions that we hold for which there is not a great compelling argument and we might say "eh, seems reasonable enough to me..."<br /><br />That is fine.<br /><br />But, a mild "seems good enough to me..." is hardly something so clear and strong as to insist upon it as "essential." I'd think you'd withhold that designation for something SO overwhelmingly obvious that everyone can see, "YES! This IS essential to the faith! There can be NO doubt what the meaning of the text is!"<br /><br />Something more akin to "the three disciples each ate ten fruit a day, meaning we can STRONGLY conclude, 'YES! They DID eat 30 fruit a day!!'"...<br /><br />and less like the "Well, since those three ate fruit every day, we can conclude that we ALL must eat Fruit and that Fruit, indeed, is the PREMIERE foodstuff!"<br /><br />One is a simple, strong, straightforward matter of facts and math, the other requires some leaps and guesses, which is why it's hard to get past a "eh, I guess it's compelling enough..." sort of feeling.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-34720993410886497422013-08-27T09:15:35.935-07:002013-08-27T09:15:35.935-07:00Before carrying on, some definitions might be help...Before carrying on, some definitions might be helpful.<br /><br />Imply vs Infer, for instance...<br /><br /><i>IMPLY = to put the suggestion into the message (sender implies) <br /><br />INFER = to take the suggestion out of the message (receiver infers) <br /><br />The best way to remember the difference between these two words is to think in terms of the model used by communications theorists. Communication consists of a message, a sender, and a receiver. The sender can imply, but the receiver can only infer. The error that usually occurs is that the word infer is mistakenly used for imply. </i><br /><br />(From Grammartips.homestead.com)<br /><br />Or, Oxford Dictionary notes...<br /><br /><i>Someone who implies a fact, belief, or opinion seeks to convey this information but it is up to the person receiving the information to interpret it.<br />Infer<br /><br />When someone infers something, they reach a conclusion or decide that something is true on the basis of the evidence available.</i><br /><br />Thus, when someone says "the text IMPLIES..." they are presuming they know the mind of God and can speak for God. Of course, in the English language, ONLY the speaker can confirm or deny if that was their implication.<br /><br />What you all are dealing with, rather than Implications, are Inferences. You read the text and infer this meaning FROM it. You can't say for sure that this was God's intended implication, but it seems like a reasonable INFERENCE to you. Same for me, of course.<br /><br />With me so far?<br /><br />Another thought, then...<br /><br />When we INFER something from the text, there can be a range of rationality to the inference. IF, for instance, a text said that "John ate 10 apples a day and Peter ate 10 oranges a day and James at 10 pears a day," you can comfortably and rationally infer from that, that those three apostles ate 30 pieces of fruit a day. I don't even know if that is an inference or just a rational deduction, given the evidence. All of that to say, some inferences can be considered fairly certain IF the presumptions establishing the inference are correct.<br /><br />On the other hand, some inferences can be only probable or even only possible, if not likely.<br /><br />So, concluding from my fruit example, we can say with some certainty that if my facts are right, then these apostles DID eat 30 fruits a day.<br /><br />On the other hand, we could deduce the following...<br /><br />These three disciples really LIKE fruit<br /><br />Or<br /><br />These three disciples are in a region and culture where eating fruit was part of the daily diet, even if they DIDN'T like it.<br /><br />for instance. And those INFERENCES MAY be right, but ONLY possibly. It's a guess based on the evidence, but there is insufficient evidence to establish for sure that either (or neither) is correct.<br /><br />We could further INFER...<br /><br />Given the evidence of these three apostles, we can conclude that ALL the apostles supported the eating of fruit because fruit should rightly be considered the PRIMARY food group one should eat.<br /><br />But this is even further removed from likelihood. COULD it be true? Sure, but there is nothing like enough evidence to demand that it must be true. It is an INFERENCE on the part of someone and the inference is lacking sufficient evidence to demand it as evidence and proof positive.<br /><br />It seems to me that your inferences are closer to this third conclusion than the first.<br /><br />One more definition:<br /><br />IF we are speaking of ESSENTIAL meaning, "Of the ESSENCE of an idea..." then I think we can safely say that the Trinity, the Bible as the Word of God, the Virgin Birth... that these are part of the ESSENCE of Christianity as many humans in the church understand it.<br /><br />IF on the other hand, we are speaking of "essential" as in, "One MUST believe this or otherwise, they are not a Christian, according to God," then those examples are NOT essential in any sense related to Jesus' actual teachings (ie, Christianity).<br /><br />Stopping for now...Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-44809789143415688452013-08-27T04:49:09.386-07:002013-08-27T04:49:09.386-07:00"If a doctrine cannot be found within the cov...<i>"If a doctrine cannot be found within the covers of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, then it can be safely rejected, your salvation does not depend on it."</i><br /><br />Well, that's the discussion, isn't it? But like Bubba says so well, you're in denial as long as Scripture does not present a doctrine in just the way that pleases YOU. All the examples herein provided, in total, lead to the conclusion that SS is far more likely than not. It is evidence far more tangible and direct than for any you've ever put forth for either support of SSM or your position on economics. But because, in this case, there is nothing that refers to God saying, "I, the Lord your God, state unequivocally that SS is my doctrine for you and is thereby a Christian essential!" you suppose the concept is impossible, unlikely and not even hinted. Indeed. To paraphrase Donald Fagan, the things that pass for reason in your case I can't understand. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-77879204812692192802013-08-26T23:14:08.456-07:002013-08-26T23:14:08.456-07:00[continued]
Again, I claim no special authority.
...[continued]<br /><br />Again, I claim no special authority.<br /><br />I defer to the Creator, who I believe revealed Himself first as Yahweh and supremely as Jesus Christ, and I defer to the prophets and apostles who Christ Himself endorsed.<br /><br />Because Christ is at the Father's right hand and we do not enjoy the presence of any living prophet or apostle, I thus defer to the written record of the teachings of the prophets and apostles -- the Bible, for which there is no real rival.<br /><br />In various other and lesser degrees, I defer to other authorities in other matters, and I take the same rational approach to the messages given by all of them, an approach that I do believe is largely universal.<br /><br /><b>I DO NOT</b> insist that any authority figure be exhaustive to the Nth degree in his communications, spelling out literally every implication that I'm supposed to accept.<br /><br />I'm not like the famously "brain-damaged" children described in Bill Cosby: Himself, who have to be told to use soap and water when their parents tell them to take a bath.<br /><br />And, <b>I DO NOT</b> become paralyzed by the thought that some alternative interpretation might exist that is superior to my own, especially when I cannot conceive of such an alternative and haven't come across it personally.<br /><br />In reading recipes and furniture instructions, at some point I accept as an unproven (and unprovable) assertion that my interpretation is -- <b>in the absence of a better alternative</b> -- good enough, and I act on my interpretation.<br /><br />As with all other sources of admittedly lesser authority, I allow that, <b>IN ITS FINITUDE,</b> normal communication cannot be so exhaustive that inference is rendered unnecessary, nor can it be so unambiguous that it precludes even <i>theoretical</i> controversies in interpretation.<br /><br />In using language to communicate to His finite creatures, even the perfect and infinite God isn't required to convey a truly exhaustive and thoroughly unambiguous message.<br /><br />What I really don't get is your apparent insistence to the contrary.<br /><br />On whose authority do YOU dare insist on how explicit God must be in His revelation? On whose authority do YOU dare reject the responsibility to draw reasonable inferences and accept them as authoritative, absent any compelling alternatives?<br /><br />"<i>Not in the Bible, not in Bubba's head, nor in my head, God has not specifically given us a list, 'HERE is what Christendom means...'</i>"<br /><br />Who on earth are you to insist that God couldn't reveal His doctrinal boundaries to us except in this specific formula?<br /><br />I don't expect an answer. I don't even expect you to give the question any serious thought, but you should know that you're utterly transparent.<br /><br />I encourage you to think deeply about that greatest commandment. Jesus commands us to love God "with all your mind."<br /><br />I doubt you will be kindly judged for turning off part of your brain to ignore the inexorable implications of His revealed word, on the flimsy excuse that they don't meet your precise formula.<br /><br />Since I've received the answer to the question I repeatedly posed and responded with everything I wished to say, I'll bow out.<br /><br />I'll see you around, even though, if we never do cross swords again, it'll probably be too soon.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-65119674237630519352013-08-26T23:10:11.823-07:002013-08-26T23:10:11.823-07:00[continued]
Having given my answers, I must now s...[continued]<br /><br />Having given my answers, I must now say that your answers confirm my quite reasonable suspicion that you deny that there are God-given essentials to Christian orthodoxy.<br /><br />"<i>God has NOT specifically given us boundaries of orthodoxy.</i>"<br /><br />Okay, it's not that you affirm that there are God-given essentials but balk at sola scriptura: you deny ALL God-given essentials, and so I conclude that no serious Christian should be all that shaken by your objections to the belief that sola scriptura is based on revelation.<br /><br />--<br /><br />"<i>God has NOT said, 'Here are the essentials of Christianity.'</i>"<br /><br />"<i>God has not specifically given us a list, 'HERE is what Christendom means...'</i>"<br /><br />These sort of narrow-minded demands are part of the reason I have found your question so ridiculous, "On Whose Authority," and so forth.<br /><br />I claim no special authority to determine God's revelation, in the sense of <i>deciding</i> what He has said, but like any other responsible and rational adult I'm competent to determine it in the sense of <i>discerning</i> that which, in His grace, God wishes to make abundantly clear to us His creatures.<br /><br />You once asked, "On whose authority MUST we consider your interpretation an essential and my interpretation NOT an essential?"<br /><br />We prefer one interpretation over another NOT because of the authority of the interpreter, but because of the plausibility of his argument. We let the positions themselves fight it out in the arena of ideas; you think your interpretation is plausible, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.<br /><br />(Our disagreement on John 16:13 shows how one challenges an interpretation on the merits, by my offering a more plausible interpretation based on the actual text, not by supposing that your asserting for yourself some sort of authority to interpret ex cathedra.) <br /><br />And while we disagree, we're under no obligation to extend the hand of Christian fellowship to everyone who claims to be a Christian.<br /><br />I'll tell you this, Dan:<br /><br />If you feel free to sling around the accusation of Pharasaism, you have very little room at all to complain about those who conclude that your beliefs drift from orthodoxy to, well, something else.<br /><br />[continued]Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-39259669606799300112013-08-26T23:04:40.983-07:002013-08-26T23:04:40.983-07:00[continued]
"And what boundaries specificall...[continued]<br /><br />"And what boundaries specifically does God give us?"<br /><br />Again, I won't be comprehensive, but TEN doctrinal boundaries should be clear from the list above.<br /><br />1-a) Theism: the duty to love God is incoherent if God doesn't exist.<br /><br />1-b) Monotheism: in Mark 12, Jesus quotes the shema.<br /><br />1-c) the primary ethical duty to God.<br /><br />1-d) the ethical duty to one's neighbors.<br /><br />2) salvation received by faith in Christ; John 14:6 makes clear that salvation is exclusively through Christ.<br /><br />3-a) the resurrection of Christ.<br /><br />3-b) the general resurrection of the dead.<br /><br />4-a) the gospel of salvation, specifically by grace alone; Gal 2:21 teaches that a works-based salvation nullifies God's grace<br /><br />4-b) the gospel of salvation, specifically through Christ's death alone; Gal 2:21 ALSO teaches that a works-based salvation means that Christ died for no purpose.<br /><br />5) the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />All of this is very standard stuff -- no "majoring on the minors" such as baptism strictly by immersion -- and it's clearly based on God's revelation through Christ and His Apostles, not through the church's merely human speculation.<br /><br />[continued]Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-57155200514560182272013-08-26T23:01:30.647-07:002013-08-26T23:01:30.647-07:00Dan, I have answered numerous questions from you i...Dan, I have answered numerous questions from you in the most direct manner possible; because I object to one line of questioning does not mean I don't know how to answer questions, nor does it mean I'm being petulant in objecting.<br /><br />I appreciate your quick and fairly clear answers, and I'm happy to answer the same questions in return.<br /><br />"Where specifically does God teach us that God gives us boundaries of orthodoxy?"<br /><br />In the inexorable implications of a few specific sections of the Bible, and while I won't attempt a comprehensive list -- I'll reiterate that the Bible never pretends to present a catechism or systematic theology -- I will give you five of the most obvious examples.<br /><br />1) Matthew 22:37-40, cf. Mark 12:29-31. Here, in Mt 22, Jesus asserts that the Law and the Prophets depend on the two great commandments; since He had already affirmed, in Mt 5, that the Law will outlast creation, then surely the ethical commands -- and the principles that undergird them -- are essential.<br /><br />2) John 3:18. I believe that punctuation is missing from the earliest manuscripts, so here either Jesus is continuing His talk with Nicodemus, or the Apostle John is expounding on Jesus' teaching that (3:15) "whoever believes" in the Son of Man "may have eternal life." Either way, the claim is clearly made in this verse that whoever does NOT believe "is condemned already," meaning that belief is essential for salvation.<br /><br />3) I Corinthians 15:12-19. Here, the Apostle Paul outlines the very grave consequences that result if Christ wasn't raised from the dead and there is no general resurrection of the dead: the Apostles' preaching is in vain and is even perjurious; the believers' faith is in vain, we are still in our sins, and we are to be most pitied; and believers who have already died have truly perished.<br /><br />4) Galatians 1:8-9. Here, Paul twice pronounces a solemn curse on those who would preach a different gospel, and so the contents of the gospel is essential -- the "gospel of Christ" as he puts it in 1:7, because He is its Author and Sbject; or "my gospel" as he puts it in Rom 2:16 and 16:25, because Paul is one of its apostolic guardians and expositors. The most important details of this gospel are made abundantly clear elsewhere in these two letters, in Rom 3:21-25 and Gal 2:15-21.<br /><br />5) I John 4:2-3. Here, the Apostle John explains the literally diabolic source of the claim that Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh: the spirit who makes that claim isn't from God and is the spirit of the antichrist.<br /><br />In these passages, the indispensable importance of the issue at-hand is made clear, either in the positive affects of the Biblical teaching...<br /><br />- all of the Law and the Prophets depend on these commands<br /><br />...or, more frequently, in the dire consequences of deviating<br /><br />- the unbeliever is condemned already<br /><br />- the apostles' preaching is in vain, and the believers' faith is in vain<br /><br />- "let him be accursed"<br /><br />- the spirit that makes that claim is the antichrist<br /><br />It is incomprehensible gibberish to affirm what these passages affirm but to deny that the affirmation is essential.<br /><br />[continued]Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-86679038730530270402013-08-26T22:26:17.571-07:002013-08-26T22:26:17.571-07:00Yes, about that link, Marshall, it begins right of...Yes, about that link, Marshall, it begins right off the top by saying...<br /><br /><i>If a doctrine cannot be found within the covers of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, then it can be safely rejected, your salvation does not depend on it.</i><br /><br />And thus, IF Sola Scriptura is NOT found within the covers of the 66, by its OWN reasoning, it can be safely rejected. Which goes back to my initial point: It is a self-defeating argument.<br /><br />The author of that page goes on to cite Augustine as the originator of SS (Augustine, in the 5th Century, NOT Scripture, NOT the early church), quoting him as saying...<br /><br /><i>This mediator [Jesus Christ], first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary.</i><br /><br />And how do we know this? That they revealed "whatever he considered necessary..."? Is that found in Scripture?<br /><br />No. Self-defeating.<br /><br />So, what case do they make at that website?<br /><br />They cite verse after verse which literally commend for us the value of scripture, but NOT ONE which says Scripture is UNIQUELY the "decider" over all other means. For instance, they cite John...<br /><br /><i>And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:<br />John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.</i><br /><br />This passage says that these things (the record of Jesus and his teachings - which do not ONE TIME mention or hint at SS) have been written so you can know and believe in Jesus and I, too affirm what it literally says. BUT, because I value Scripture, I'm not willing to affirm MORE than it says, and I'm certainly not going to affirm a guess about more than it says as being "essential," when clearly it is extrabiblical eisegesis, not literal teaching.<br /><br />They also cite Jesus in Matthew, saying...<br /><br /><i>Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:<br />Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.</i><br /><br />And indeed, it IS good to heed Jesus' teachings, and Jesus NEVER TAUGHT that Scripture is the Sole Decider and "Holy Trump Card." The text is not there textually or contextually.<br /><br />"The ROCK" in that text refers to JESUS, not to Scripture, and certainly not OUR INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture.<br /><br />I could go on, but they're all more of the same. Verse after verse that affirms Scripture, or holy teachings, but none which demand SS of the 66 Books. At the very best, you could say some of these verses MIGHT hint at it, if you read it that way.<br /><br />So, returning to your comment, Marshall...<br /><br /><i> I don't conflate my opinion with God's will. I BASE my opinion on God's will.</i><br /><br />Me, too, or at least I strive to by God's grace. But here you and I are, looking at some of the same passages and drawing different conclusions. That reality DEMANDS an answer: On what basis would either of us INSIST that OUR interpretation is "God's Will..."? Says who?<br />Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-2179553515119570522013-08-26T21:36:35.920-07:002013-08-26T21:36:35.920-07:00"It is a VITAL question to answer IF you are ...<br /><i>"It is a VITAL question to answer IF you are conflating your opinion with God's Will."</i><br /><br />This statement suggests a great part of the problem between us. I don't conflate my opinion with God's will. I BASE my opinion on God's will. You just prefer to see it the wrong way so as to diminish my position.<br /><br />But I'll answer the question by saying that it is on Scripture's authority that you should see it the same way because that is what Scripture says. <br /><br />Between Bubba and myself, we've listed many verses where the importance of Scripture is more than lightly implied, far more than merely hinted. I even offered a link in one of my last two comments in the previous thread that I'm guessing you never even accessed. It contains about fourteen citations (though one I myself find questionable). And still you pretend there's no Biblical suggestion of its own status of importance. <br /><br />Throughout, you have employed a variation of the Bill Clinton defense, tap-dancing over the definition of "is". Of course noting is more childish in your style than insisting the specific words must have appeared in some specific order that suits DAN TRABUE, before any concession on your part is possible. Hardly gracious. Hardly honest. But very much worth it in order to see Bubba's parody that totally describes your style to a TEE.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-31410043475932345202013-08-26T17:16:35.848-07:002013-08-26T17:16:35.848-07:00sigh...
Bubba...
How would you answer these two ...sigh...<br /><br />Bubba...<br /><br /><i>How would you answer these two questions?</i><br /><br />IF I answer, will YOU answer? I have to rather doubt it, given your petulant history, but to show you how easy it is...<br /><br /><b>Where specifically does God teach us that God gives us boundaries of orthodoxy? </b><br /><br />God has NOT specifically given us boundaries of orthodoxy. God has NOT said, "Here are the essentials of Christianity."<br /><br />This is a simple, observable fact.<br /><br /><b>And what boundaries specifically does God give us?</b><br /><br />"Boundaries for orthodox Christianity?" "Essentials of Christianity?" <br /><br />God has not given us any. Observably, factually speaking, that has not happened. Not in the Bible, not in Bubba's head, nor in my head, God has not specifically given us a list, "HERE is what Christendom means..."<br /><br />One can make the argument that the biblical writers have hinted at bits and pieces of this. For instance, John speaks this truth, "Those who love are of God... those who don't love are not of God..."<br /><br />So, one could make the case that a boundary of Christian orthodoxy is that we are to love, as God loves.<br /><br />But God has not specifically told us that, that is a human reasoning. One that probably most of us think is reasonable, from our human perspective.<br /><br />But God has not specifically told us that.<br /><br />One could argue, similarly, that similar ethical breaches are beyond "God's Kingdom" and make the reasonable conclusion that these ethical breaches are beyond Christian ethics.<br /><br />But God has never given us a list of Christian essentials.<br /><br />Especially, once you move away from ethical behavior type questions to more ethereal, dogma sorts of questions, God has never said, Here's my list of essentials: Trinity, virgin birth, sola scriptura and PSA.<br /><br />Hasn't happened.<br /><br />Now that I've shown you how to answer a simple question in a direct manner, your turn.<br /><br />Answer the questions or get your hell out of here.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-55269486922113412632013-08-26T17:07:02.649-07:002013-08-26T17:07:02.649-07:00Bubba...
I've never claimed to be standing on...Bubba...<br /><br /><i>I've never claimed to be standing on my own authority on this issue: I never have, and you have insisted on shoving words in my mouth.</i><br /><br />Well, as I've clearly stated, this is how it SEEMS. <br /><br />As I clearly stated, I've repeatedly ASKED for some clarification, so by all means, tell me, Bubba:<br /><br />ON WHOSE AUTHORITY would you make this claim, if not your own?<br /><br />You can't dodge the claim ("I never made that claim") and simultaneously refuse to clarify with a direct answer to a simple question (IF it's not on your own authority, then on WHOSE authority?), not and be taken seriously and I am trying oh so hard to take you seriously.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-42614654557755629662013-08-26T17:05:43.124-07:002013-08-26T17:05:43.124-07:00Those are great questions that seem to restate my ...Those are great questions that seem to restate my "NAME ONE doctrine" challenge to you.<br /><br /><br />How would you answer these two questions?Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-65830776665515142562013-08-26T16:48:38.345-07:002013-08-26T16:48:38.345-07:00The problem, Bubba, is that your very purpose for ...The problem, Bubba, is that your very purpose for NOT answering the (what seems to me to be) required question of our position is that that purpose, itself, begs the very question you're trying to avoid. Let me try this another time, another way, raising a question begged by another one of your questions...<br /><br />Bubba...<br /><br /><i>It's about the God-given boundaries of orthodoxy.</i><br /><br />Where specifically does God teach us that God gives us boundaries of orthodoxy? <br /><br />And what boundaries specifically does God give us?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.com