Predestination, All Things are Determined by God, Even the Outcome of a Roll of a Dice

cga · Nov 15, 2016

tom55 said:
So this exegesis of scripture about predestination has never happened before you did it? You came up with this on your own?

If we are predestined to reject predestination then is it really our fault? Isn't it Gods fault for writing the script that way?

How can I harden my heart and reject His truth if I am predestined to harden my heart and reject my truth?

You make it sound like I have a choice to 'REJECT his teaching' but in reality (according to your theory) I don't have a choice because I am predestined to reject it. How can I reject something if I have no choice in accepting it?

You pose the very same questions that Paul addresses,

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Romans 9:19-20)

And God is the one who hardens the hearts, to prevent those whom he has not chosen to receive salvation,

He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" (Mark 4:11-12)

All I can say is I pity you if you still cannot come to understanding. I have given you all the scriptures in this study, I hope you come to understanding, otherwise I have nothing further to say to you.

Dcopymope · Nov 15, 2016

tom55 said:
How is he expressing mercy and love if he wrote a script that we have no choice but to follow that script? That's not mercy or love. That is a puppet and puppet master. There is no love or mercy involved.

If in His script I am destined to live a miserable life as a drunk, drug addicted child molester who ends up in prison and beaten by other inmates for being a child molester how is that God expressing love and mercy on me? Why was I destined to be beaten/addicted and you not?

Your theory causes more questions than answers.

cga said:
It is not my theory, it is scripture. I didn't just one day invent this doctrine, I learned about it in scripture, hence all the scriptures I posted in this study, which you seemed to ignore. Everything in creation expresses different characteristics of God, for example... the uncountable amount of stars express his incredible power, or the diversity of how much he has created to where thousands of years later after creation we are still discovering new species of animals expresses how much higher he is than we are, or the fact that the worst of sinners exist and are not struck dead immediately expresses his mercy, the fact that he sent his son to die for sinners expresses his mercy and also love. To say that what God has appointed to be expresses nothing, such as mercy or love, is foolish.

Even so, not everyone is destined to receive mercy, only very few. Most of the world is appointed to be disobedient, and as such, most of the world will be burned up in a fiery end. I do not know what your destiny is, but I know that anyone that does not understand predestination and rejects it cannot be saved, for they lack full knowledge of God, and their rejection of this teaching is a demonstration of a hardening of their heart to reject this truth, which is caused by God. Anyone who ends up rejecting key doctrines such as this end up doing so because God has rejected them and disallowed them from coming to understanding. I do hope you do come to understand this truth and accept it buddy.

(John 3:16-17) "¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. {17} For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

(2 Peter 3:8-9) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. {9} The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

The two Scriptures above contradicts your claim that only a few were 'predestined' to salvation. According to your interpretation, these two scriptures says that whosoever God predestined to believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life, but it doesn't say anything of the kind, because its not God's will that any should perish.

cga · Nov 15, 2016

Dcopymope said:
The two Scriptures above contradicts your claim that only a few were 'predestined' to salvation. According to your interpretation, these two scriptures says that whosoever God predestined to believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life, but it doesn't say anything of the kind, because its not God's will that any should perish.

It is the Lord's will, Jesus Christ, that none should perish. But it is God's will to show mercy to some, and to punish others, hence,

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- (Romans 9:22-23)

tom55 · Nov 15, 2016

justaname said:
Actually the first thing I have done here was correct your misunderstanding of the Greek. Then I posted commentary by scholars that exegete the Scripture.

Notice here you are explaining how you "defend your doctrine". This is actually eisegesis and you are admitting you do this. You clearly state, "know it (your doctrine) and be able to exegete it." Parenthesis added by me. In other words you are admitting you are coming to the text with your doctrinal presuppositions already imposed on the text.

I don't do that, I exegete the text, the Scripture. Through proper exegesis I form doctrine. This is where you and I differ. I am not attempting to defend a doctrine. I am presenting what the Scripture clearly states, context taken into account. If I am convinced of something in Scripture that discredits my doctrine, my doctrine changes. Scripture is the ruling authority for me, not doctrine.

When you exegete the Scripture and thru "proper" exegesis you form doctrine and then later you are convinced that something in Scripture discredits your own doctrine so you then change your doctrine how can you ever know for sure if you have finally found the truth of Scripture or the right doctrine? If it wasn't properly exegeted the first time how do you know you did it properely the 2nd or 3rd time?

If "Scripture clearly states" something then why would you need to change your doctrine? How could any one disagree with you if it is CLEARLY STATED? Maybe scripture isn't clearly stated and you need guidance so that you don't twist scripture? (2Peter 3:16, Acts 8:31, )

At what point do you KNOW you got it right?

What if five other Christians disagree with your exegesis of Scripture who do you go to decide who is right? (Matthew 18:17)

tom55 · Nov 15, 2016

cga said:
You pose the very same questions that Paul addresses,

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Romans 9:19-20)

And God is the one who hardens the hearts, to prevent those whom he has not chosen to receive salvation,

He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" (Mark 4:11-12)

All I can say is I pity you if you still cannot come to understanding. I have given you all the scriptures in this study, I hope you come to understanding, otherwise I have nothing further to say to you.

So God hardens my heart, I don't.

I have no choice in what I do or say since I am predestined to do it or say it.

I don't think you really believe what you are writing because you said that you 'hope I come to understanding'. You can hope all you want but it doesn't matter....if I am predestined. You can pray for me all you want...it doesn't matter....if I am predestined. You told me to stop rejecting the truth and accept it but I can't stop...if I am predestined. You also said you "have nothing further to say" to me. How do you KNOW you have nothing further to say to me?? Did you make that decision or were you predestined to make that decision. Logically if you do say something more to me then it was Gods choice, not yours since you already said you have nothing further to say.

Sounds like we are all robots. I don't feel like a robot. <_<

Dcopymope · Nov 15, 2016

cga said:
It is the Lord's will, Jesus Christ, that none should perish. But it is God's will to show mercy to some, and to punish others, hence,

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- (Romans 9:22-23)

The scriptures make no such distinguishment between the "Lord" Jesus, and "God" showing mercy for who he may choose. As far as most on here is concerned, the Lord Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. And Whosoever shall call on the lord shall be saved. I don't recall it saying that whosoever God predestined to call on the lord shall be saved.

Dcopymope · Nov 15, 2016

tom55 said:
So God hardens my heart, I don't.

I have no choice in what I do or say since I am predestined to do it or say it.

I don't think you really believe what you are writing because you said that you 'hope I come to understanding'. You can hope all you want but it doesn't matter....if I am predestined. You can pray for me all you want...it doesn't matter....if I am predestined. You told me to stop rejecting the truth and accept it but I can't stop...if I am predestined. You also said you "have nothing further to say" to me. How do you KNOW you have nothing further to say to me?? Did you make that decision or were you predestined to make that decision. Logically if you do say something more to me then it was Gods choice, not yours since you already said you have nothing further to say.

Sounds like we are all robots. I don't feel like a robot. <_<

According to him, God programmed every single living soul with a set of 0 & 1, "if" "then" input statements like you would a robot. A robot cannot make its own decisions, it can only do what it was predestined to do by its code. Its given a set of problems, or "if" statements, and is given a set of responses, or "then" statements to solve it. It cannot formulate its own solutions outside the parameters of its code, or even makeup its own problems and think outside the box in how to solve them.

justaname · Nov 15, 2016

tom55 said:
When you exegete the Scripture and thru "proper" exegesis you form doctrine and then later you are convinced that something in Scripture discredits your own doctrine so you then change your doctrine how can you ever know for sure if you have finally found the truth of Scripture or the right doctrine? If it wasn't properly exegeted the first time how do you know you did it properely the 2nd or 3rd time?

If "Scripture clearly states" something then why would you need to change your doctrine? How could any one disagree with you if it is CLEARLY STATED? Maybe scripture isn't clearly stated and you need guidance so that you don't twist scripture? (2Peter 3:16, Acts 8:31, )

At what point do you KNOW you got it right?

What if five other Christians disagree with your exegesis of Scripture who do you go to decide who is right? (Matthew 18:17)

Scripture will not contradict itself, only the interpretation has that capability (to contradict itself), thus we must use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Everyone who reads Scripture is an interpreter and applies a certain hermeneutic to the text. The main concept behind studying and interpreting Scripture is to remain humble and teachable. At no point does anyone "know they have it right". If interpreting the text were just that easy, there would only be one view in interpretation. Yet from before the reformation, from before the split between east and west, good theologians, Holy Spirit led individuals, have disagreed in regards to interpreting Scripture. Early Church Fathers have differing views in regard to the text. Thus we remain humble in regards to God's Holy Writ.

In exegesis one must keep in tack what is being said in the text without importing ideas or concepts into it, although this idea in itself is a particular hermeneutic that all do not follow when interpreting the text. Yet this is a widely accepted approach amongst conservative modern scholarship. So then as theologians attempt to exegete they may miss something in the text, or unwittingly make the text say something it did not. To be extremely dogmatic about a particular interpretation can prove you to be prideful about something you have concocted and not what God has intended in His word. (James 3:1) Here it is understandable why it is so important to be able to approach the text from it's original languages (Greek or Hebrew). At least then interpreters can view the syntax and grammar without being dependent on the translator doing that work for them. Know that as translators (not to be confused with interpreters) approach the text they must make certain theological decisions on how to translate from say Greek to (Insert Language).

Then it is important to console the Church Universal. We have a vast amount of Holy Spirt led theologians from the past that have gone on before us. It is good to understand that if theologians are introducing some unfound, brand new idea to the Scripture, it is likely an improper view or even heretical. Scripture has been under the theological lens for thousands of years, and numerous theologians have examined the Scriptures gaining profound insight illuming the text for others to glean from. It is only proper then to go back to the giants that have gone on before us and see how your interpretation stands against the test of time.

One last concept. There are many things that are clearly stated. For example a short verse: Jesus wept. I would argue this is clearly stated, yet others would argue Jesus didn't actually weep if in some way it contradicted their dogmatic doctrinal position. For some, Scripture can mean anything they want it to. Yet God has intended Scripture to conform to His holy communication, thus He used language, in its plain understandable context, to convey His message. So then as I, and many other theologians, approach the Scriptures, we humbly submit ourselves to it's plain meaning. We do not look for a "hidden" meaning or the allegorical or "spiritual" meaning, nor do we seek to understand what the text is saying to us personally. We make our best attempt to place ourselves in the sandals of time, to gain an understanding of what the original author was conveying to their original audience. Here the interpreter must bear the historical, geographical, and cultural significances the context may posses. Only after a thorough examination of the scripture by reading, and re-reading, only to repeat again and again, carefully considering all that is said in it's particular setting and context, prayerfully seeking to understand what God is presenting to the people it was written to in their time, place, and culture, searching out the arguments and themes the author has presented to the point of the passage being examined, then and only then can the interpreter bring forward the application to a contemporary audience.

Exegesis when properly executed and properly presented is not an easy task. It is not the work for everyone, yet everyone who claims to be a teacher of the word ought to be doing it. All this to say though, even through this approach, different exegetes have come to different conclusions or interpretations concerning certain passages. Yet the vast majority of theologians come to the same conclusions concerning matters of what we consider to be of "first importance" or orthodox Christian tenants. (e.g. the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by God's grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ) In this category all Catholic Christians agree.

I could go further into detail concerning this subject, yet there are many books that do a far greater job explaining it. If you are interested in some recommendations I could give you some.

cga · Nov 16, 2016

Dcopymope said:
The scriptures make no such distinguishment between the "Lord" Jesus, and "God" showing mercy for who he may choose. As far as most on here is concerned, the Lord Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. And Whosoever shall call on the lord shall be saved. I don't recall it saying that whosoever God predestined to call on the lord shall be saved.

Jesus is indeed God, as a representation of God in creation, but he is not the Father, as the two are very distinct beings. And so, it is the Father who does not change his mind from what he has determined to do,

God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19 [NIV])

Whereas Jesus Christ, who is lesser than the Father, is not the one who predestines all things, but it is the Father alone who predestines and predetermines and foreknows all things.

kerwin · Nov 16, 2016

cga said:
Jesus is indeed God, as a representation of God in creation, but he is not the Father, as the two are very distinct beings. And so, it is the Father who does not change his mind from what he has determined to do,

God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19 [NIV])

Whereas Jesus Christ, who is lesser than the Father, is not the one who predestines all things, but it is the Father alone who predestines and predetermines and foreknows all things.

You are righting in the wrong forum. Please consider placing those things considered unorthodox by this board into the unorthodox forum. This post would qualify as this is a Trinitarian board but I believe the thread is alright where it is.

cga · Nov 16, 2016

kerwin said:
You are righting in the wrong forum. Please consider placing those things considered unorthodox by this board into the unorthodox forum. This post would qualify as this is a Trinitarian board but I believe the thread is alright where it is.

My statements are scriptural,

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28 [NIV])

Christ is the visible representation of the invisible God, the Firstborn and Lord of all creation. (Colossians 1:15 [WNT])

Please consider believing what the scriptures teach, instead of trying to shun me away for merely repeating what the scriptures teach.

tom55 · Nov 17, 2016

justaname said:
Scripture will not contradict itself, only the interpretation has that capability (to contradict itself), thus we must use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Everyone who reads Scripture is an interpreter and applies a certain hermeneutic to the text. The main concept behind studying and interpreting Scripture is to remain humble and teachable. At no point does anyone "know they have it right". If interpreting the text were just that easy, there would only be one view in interpretation. Yet from before the reformation, from before the split between east and west, good theologians, Holy Spirit led individuals, have disagreed in regards to interpreting Scripture. Early Church Fathers have differing views in regard to the text. Thus we remain humble in regards to God's Holy Writ.

In exegesis one must keep in tack what is being said in the text without importing ideas or concepts into it, although this idea in itself is a particular hermeneutic that all do not follow when interpreting the text. Yet this is a widely accepted approach amongst conservative modern scholarship. So then as theologians attempt to exegete they may miss something in the text, or unwittingly make the text say something it did not. To be extremely dogmatic about a particular interpretation can prove you to be prideful about something you have concocted and not what God has intended in His word. (James 3:1) Here it is understandable why it is so important to be able to approach the text from it's original languages (Greek or Hebrew). At least then interpreters can view the syntax and grammar without being dependent on the translator doing that work for them. Know that as translators (not to be confused with interpreters) approach the text they must make certain theological decisions on how to translate from say Greek to (Insert Language).

Then it is important to console the Church Universal. We have a vast amount of Holy Spirt led theologians from the past that have gone on before us. It is good to understand that if theologians are introducing some unfound, brand new idea to the Scripture, it is likely an improper view or even heretical. Scripture has been under the theological lens for thousands of years, and numerous theologians have examined the Scriptures gaining profound insight illuming the text for others to glean from. It is only proper then to go back to the giants that have gone on before us and see how your interpretation stands against the test of time.

One last concept. There are many things that are clearly stated. For example a short verse: Jesus wept. I would argue this is clearly stated, yet others would argue Jesus didn't actually weep if in some way it contradicted their dogmatic doctrinal position. For some, Scripture can mean anything they want it to. Yet God has intended Scripture to conform to His holy communication, thus He used language, in its plain understandable context, to convey His message. So then as I, and many other theologians, approach the Scriptures, we humbly submit ourselves to it's plain meaning. We do not look for a "hidden" meaning or the allegorical or "spiritual" meaning, nor do we seek to understand what the text is saying to us personally. We make our best attempt to place ourselves in the sandals of time, to gain an understanding of what the original author was conveying to their original audience. Here the interpreter must bear the historical, geographical, and cultural significances the context may posses. Only after a thorough examination of the scripture by reading, and re-reading, only to repeat again and again, carefully considering all that is said in it's particular setting and context, prayerfully seeking to understand what God is presenting to the people it was written to in their time, place, and culture, searching out the arguments and themes the author has presented to the point of the passage being examined, then and only then can the interpreter bring forward the application to a contemporary audience.

Exegesis when properly executed and properly presented is not an easy task. It is not the work for everyone, yet everyone who claims to be a teacher of the word ought to be doing it. All this to say though, even through this approach, different exegetes have come to different conclusions or interpretations concerning certain passages. Yet the vast majority of theologians come to the same conclusions concerning matters of what we consider to be of "first importance" or orthodox Christian tenants. (e.g. the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by God's grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ) In this category all Catholic Christians agree.

I could go further into detail concerning this subject, yet there are many books that do a far greater job explaining it. If you are interested in some recommendations I could give you some.

When you say we must "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" you are talking about a self authenticating scripture. If Scripture is self authenticating then why did the early Church leaders disagree on what IS Scripture or to say it another way, what books should be in the bible? Wouldn't scripture or the Holy Spirit have led all of them to the same conclusion of what books should be in the bible if it is self authenticating? We don't have a table of contents so we have to use scripture to decide what is scripture...don't we?

You say, "The main concept behind studying and interpreting Scripture is to remain humble and teachable". Who decides who is humble and teachable? If we are both humble and teachable but we both come up with different interpretations on baptism, who is right? According to your theory no one is right since we are both 'humble and teachable" and at no point can "anyone know they have it right". Your right. I'm right. The Mormons are right. Joe's church in any town USA is right!!!! maybe the Muslims got it right?

If you really believe that "At no point does anyone know they have it right" then that means we will never know The Truth and that means there is no truth in scripture. Everyone is right and no one is wrong?

No one can say the Catholic Church is wrong in the way they interpret scripture and no one can say Martin Luther was wrong for wanting to remove some of the books of the NT. If I deny the Trinity I could be right or I could be wrong.....no one knows who is right.

I don't understand how you can say "At no point does anyone know they have it right" and then a couple of paragraphs later say "if theologians are introducing some unfound brand new idea to the Scripture, it is likely an improper view or even heretical" and we must "console the Church Universal". What Church? The Church you choose? The ones that have 500,000 or more members? What if they were humble and teachable theologians couldn't they be right and everyone else wrong? According to your theory "no one knows if they have it right".

You are saying two DIFFERENT things. We don't know if they have it right but if they introduce something we disagree with then they are likely heretical? That is not logical or biblical.

Who decides when "Exegesis are properly executed and properly presented'? I agree with you it's not an easy task.... so who decides?

If the bible is the ultimate authority who has the right to properly interpret the bible since it can't interpret itself? It seems you believe that we need to poll the "vast majority of theologians" to figure out what the bible means. Are you going to choose the theologians from 1800-2000 years ago or the theologians from 500 years ago thru today?

I agree with you and it is historically accurate that "Holy Spirit led individuals, have disagreed in regards to interpreting Scripture" and that the "Early Church Fathers have differing views in regard to the text." However, a majority of those men AGREED on the key issues and The Catholic Church has adopted the doctrine of the majority of those men. Have you read The Church Fathers? Their writings are like reading RCC doctrine. I choose the men from 1800-2000 years ago.

I could go further into detail concerning this subject yet there are many books that do a far greater job explaining it than I can so that you may know The Truth. If you are interested in some recommendations I could give you some.

justaname · Nov 17, 2016

tom55 said:
When you say we must "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" you are talking about a self authenticating scripture. If Scripture is self authenticating then why did the early Church leaders disagree on what IS Scripture or to say it another way, what books should be in the bible? Wouldn't scripture or the Holy Spirit have led all of them to the same conclusion of what books should be in the bible if it is self authenticating? We don't have a table of contents so we have to use scripture to decide what is scripture...don't we?

You say, "The main concept behind studying and interpreting Scripture is to remain humble and teachable". Who decides who is humble and teachable? If we are both humble and teachable but we both come up with different interpretations on baptism, who is right? According to your theory no one is right since we are both 'humble and teachable" and at no point can "anyone know they have it right". Your right. I'm right. The Mormons are right. Joe's church in any town USA is right!!!! maybe the Muslims got it right?

If you really believe that "At no point does anyone know they have it right" then that means we will never know The Truth and that means there is no truth in scripture. Everyone is right and no one is wrong?

No one can say the Catholic Church is wrong in the way they interpret scripture and no one can say Martin Luther was wrong for wanting to remove some of the books of the NT. If I deny the Trinity I could be right or I could be wrong.....no one knows who is right.

I don't understand how you can say "At no point does anyone know they have it right" and then a couple of paragraphs later say "if theologians are introducing some unfound brand new idea to the Scripture, it is likely an improper view or even heretical" and we must "console the Church Universal". What Church? The Church you choose? The ones that have 500,000 or more members? What if they were humble and teachable theologians couldn't they be right and everyone else wrong? According to your theory "no one knows if they have it right".

You are saying two DIFFERENT things. We don't know if they have it right but if they introduce something we disagree with then they are likely heretical? That is not logical or biblical.

Who decides when "Exegesis are properly executed and properly presented'? I agree with you it's not an easy task.... so who decides?

If the bible is the ultimate authority who has the right to properly interpret the bible since it can't interpret itself? It seems you believe that we need to poll the "vast majority of theologians" to figure out what the bible means. Are you going to choose the theologians from 1800-2000 years ago or the theologians from 500 years ago thru today?

I agree with you and it is historically accurate that "Holy Spirit led individuals, have disagreed in regards to interpreting Scripture" and that the "Early Church Fathers have differing views in regard to the text." However, a majority of those men AGREED on the key issues and The Catholic Church has adopted the doctrine of the majority of those men. Have you read The Church Fathers? Their writings are like reading RCC doctrine. I choose the men from 1800-2000 years ago.

I could go further into detail concerning this subject yet there are many books that do a far greater job explaining it than I can so that you may know The Truth. If you are interested in some recommendations I could give you some.

I will respond in greater detail later, yet do you understand that you are under the same dilemma in every question you pose even if you follow the RCC?

Yes I have read the ECF. Much of their interpretation is allegorical and they contradict one another on many occasions. I think the better question is have you read the ECF or are you simply following RCC doctrine and inculcation?

But again more later...

Shalom!

justaname · Nov 17, 2016

tom55 said:
When you say we must "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" you are talking about a self authenticating scripture. If Scripture is self authenticating then why did the early Church leaders disagree on what IS Scripture or to say it another way, what books should be in the bible? Wouldn't scripture or the Holy Spirit have led all of them to the same conclusion of what books should be in the bible if it is self authenticating? We don't have a table of contents so we have to use scripture to decide what is scripture...don't we?

Do you know the criteria the early Church used in authenticating Scripture? The Church recognized what is Scripture, it did not establish it. This though must be qualified that those who coauthored the New Testament were apportioned to the Church. (Coauthored to mean under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) All of the OT was established before the Church was. Then as to the NT these are a collection of writings circulated amongst the churches especially in the case of the epistles. Some of the criteria included apostolic authenticity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and usage by the ECF. It is not so much that there was disagreement as to what was Scripture as the disagreement was more on what was not Scripture. Yet this in itself does not invalidate the divine origin of Scripture in any way nor does it discredit it's authority nor God's providence in it's summation. It is not any organization that grants authority to God's Word, rather it is God Himself. Thus your rebuttal speaks nothing to Scripture interpreting Scripture. The Church recognized it's self authenticating in the selection process.

tom55 said:
You say, "The main concept behind studying and interpreting Scripture is to remain humble and teachable". Who decides who is humble and teachable? If we are both humble and teachable but we both come up with different interpretations on baptism, who is right? According to your theory no one is right since we are both 'humble and teachable" and at no point can "anyone know they have it right". Your right. I'm right. The Mormons are right. Joe's church in any town USA is right!!!! maybe the Muslims got it right?

If you really believe that "At no point does anyone know they have it right" then that means we will never know The Truth and that means there is no truth in scripture. Everyone is right and no one is wrong?

No one can say the Catholic Church is wrong in the way they interpret scripture and no one can say Martin Luther was wrong for wanting to remove some of the books of the NT. If I deny the Trinity I could be right or I could be wrong.....no one knows who is right.

I say God decides who is humble and teachable. It is through this attitude that God is able to reveal Himself to individuals as they study His Scripture. Thus it is not man who decides "who is right" rather God. Yet from man's perspective we can believe in what we choose, hence the varying religions and or denominations. Friend God is the only objective party here. All of man's perceptions are subjective and come from a fallen perspective. You are asking for absolutes and the only one able to provide that is God.

tom55 said:
I don't understand how you can say "At no point does anyone know they have it right" and then a couple of paragraphs later say "if theologians are introducing some unfound brand new idea to the Scripture, it is likely an improper view or even heretical" and we must "console the Church Universal". What Church? The Church you choose? The ones that have 500,000 or more members? What if they were humble and teachable theologians couldn't they be right and everyone else wrong? According to your theory "no one knows if they have it right".

Do you not know who the Catholic Church is? It is the whole collection of the children of God that knows no lines of demarcation concerning men's governing. They come from all classes and walks, yet their binding authority is Jesus Christ. They are and have been indwelled with the Holy Spirit giving guarantee and witness to them and their succession began at Pentecost. All of us involved in the Catholic Church have more in agreement than do we differ, yet we are all under one Lord. Thus when we are to console the Church Catholic (Universal) we seek all who are in agreement with the core tenants of the Christian faith. So then there is only one Church, with many local congregations.

tom55 said:
You are saying two DIFFERENT things. We don't know if they have it right but if they introduce something we disagree with then they are likely heretical? That is not logical or biblical.

This is both logical and biblical, yet your shallow view will not allow you to see the greater depth of God's hand in His Church. We don't know if we "have it right" because we are not those who objectively decide between right and wrong. This is a task for God, yet we can believe what is right. This must be something you understand from the story of redemption. All along man has chosen to do what is right in his own eyes, even unto killing the Christ. It is God who directs us to right from wrong proven by His sending of His prophets, His apostles, His saints, His Son, His Spirit, and he has given His Scriptures so we can know His character. Truth, goodness, holiness, love, and things such as these are based in God's nature and are the ideal. If left in man's hands as you suggest we would and could never know if we have it right. By your standard you are left with the same conundrum. Yet by my standard we are left with God's final authority.

tom55 said:
Who decides when "Exegesis are properly executed and properly presented'? I agree with you it's not an easy task.... so who decides?

God. Please understand if you are attempting to receive man's approval, you are already in trouble. Not all men will ever agree and you have offended God is seeking man's approval over His.

tom55 said:
If the bible is the ultimate authority who has the right to properly interpret the bible since it can't interpret itself? It seems you believe that we need to poll the "vast majority of theologians" to figure out what the bible means. Are you going to choose the theologians from 1800-2000 years ago or the theologians from 500 years ago thru today?

This is called a fallacy of the excluded middle. I actually look to theologians from 2,000 years ago thru unto today. Again I select theologians from the Catholic Church. Yet even here as a student of the word I am subject to interpret the Scriptures myself first and foremost. Only after I do the hard work of exegesis ought I look to what insight I may have missed by examining writings of the saints of the past.

tom55 said:
I agree with you and it is historically accurate that "Holy Spirit led individuals, have disagreed in regards to interpreting Scripture" and that the "Early Church Fathers have differing views in regard to the text." However, a majority of those men AGREED on the key issues and The Catholic Church has adopted the doctrine of the majority of those men. Have you read The Church Fathers? Their writings are like reading RCC doctrine. I choose the men from 1800-2000 years ago.

You do yourself a disservice as there are many modern Roman Catholic theologians you are not gleaning from. I prefer to be not so short sighted in understanding theology and seek a larger reading selection. But yes I have read the ECF, yet I can't say I have exhausted my study of them. There is truly a great volume of material to be consumed. Is there a particular Father that resonates with you? I really like Augustine and Aquinas. Some in the monastic movement I like also as well.

What is comical is you did the same thing you said I did calling it "not logical or biblical". You said the ECF disagreed and agreed...how do you decide which one to agree with, or do you let someone decide for you?

tom55 said:
I could go further into detail concerning this subject yet there are many books that do a far greater job explaining it than I can so that you may know The Truth. If you are interested in some recommendations I could give you some.

Please give me some recommendations! It is possible I have already read them but maybe you have some new books I am unaware of.

Also I will allow you the last word on this, yet after that it would be proper if we move this conversation to it's own thread as we are a bit off topic...if you decide to make a thread I will pick up the conversation there, yet again you can respond here if you like.

tom55 · Nov 18, 2016

justaname said:
Do you know the criteria the early Church used in authenticating Scripture? The Church recognized what is Scripture, it did not establish it. This though must be qualified that those who coauthored the New Testament were apportioned to the Church. (Coauthored to mean under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) All of the OT was established before the Church was. Then as to the NT these are a collection of writings circulated amongst the churches especially in the case of the epistles. Some of the criteria included apostolic authenticity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and usage by the ECF. It is not so much that there was disagreement as to what was Scripture as the disagreement was more on what was not Scripture. Yet this in itself does not invalidate the divine origin of Scripture in any way nor does it discredit it's authority nor God's providence in it's summation. It is not any organization that grants authority to God's Word, rather it is God Himself. Thus your rebuttal speaks nothing to Scripture interpreting Scripture. The Church recognized it's self authenticating in the selection process.

I say God decides who is humble and teachable. It is through this attitude that God is able to reveal Himself to individuals as they study His Scripture. Thus it is not man who decides "who is right" rather God. Yet from man's perspective we can believe in what we choose, hence the varying religions and or denominations. Friend God is the only objective party here. All of man's perceptions are subjective and come from a fallen perspective. You are asking for absolutes and the only one able to provide that is God.

Do you not know who the Catholic Church is? It is the whole collection of the children of God that knows no lines of demarcation concerning men's governing. They come from all classes and walks, yet their binding authority is Jesus Christ. They are and have been indwelled with the Holy Spirit giving guarantee and witness to them and their succession began at Pentecost. All of us involved in the Catholic Church have more in agreement than do we differ, yet we are all under one Lord. Thus when we are to console the Church Catholic (Universal) we seek all who are in agreement with the core tenants of the Christian faith. So then there is only one Church, with many local congregations.

This is both logical and biblical, yet your shallow view will not allow you to see the greater depth of God's hand in His Church. We don't know if we "have it right" because we are not those who objectively decide between right and wrong. This is a task for God, yet we can believe what is right. This must be something you understand from the story of redemption. All along man has chosen to do what is right in his own eyes, even unto killing the Christ. It is God who directs us to right from wrong proven by His sending of His prophets, His apostles, His saints, His Son, His Spirit, and he has given His Scriptures so we can know His character. Truth, goodness, holiness, love, and things such as these are based in God's nature and are the ideal. If left in man's hands as you suggest we would and could never know if we have it right. By your standard you are left with the same conundrum. Yet by my standard we are left with God's final authority.

God. Please understand if you are attempting to receive man's approval, you are already in trouble. Not all men will ever agree and you have offended God is seeking man's approval over His.

This is called a fallacy of the excluded middle. I actually look to theologians from 2,000 years ago thru unto today. Again I select theologians from the Catholic Church. Yet even here as a student of the word I am subject to interpret the Scriptures myself first and foremost. Only after I do the hard work of exegesis ought I look to what insight I may have missed by examining writings of the saints of the past.

You do yourself a disservice as there are many modern Roman Catholic theologians you are not gleaning from. I prefer to be not so short sighted in understanding theology and seek a larger reading selection. But yes I have read the ECF, yet I can't say I have exhausted my study of them. There is truly a great volume of material to be consumed. Is there a particular Father that resonates with you? I really like Augustine and Aquinas. Some in the monastic movement I like also as well.

What is comical is you did the same thing you said I did calling it "not logical or biblical". You said the ECF disagreed and agreed...how do you decide which one to agree with, or do you let someone decide for you?

Please give me some recommendations! It is possible I have already read them but maybe you have some new books I am unaware of.

Also I will allow you the last word on this, yet after that it would be proper if we move this conversation to it's own thread as we are a bit off topic...if you decide to make a thread I will pick up the conversation there, yet again you can respond here if you like.

You asked: Do you know the criteria the early Church used in authenticating Scripture?

Yes I do. For the first 300 or so years AFTER the death of Jesus some of The Churches read from or thought that many books (including The seven letters of Ignatius, The Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, Didache, The Shepherd) were inspired but they were later decided by The Church not to be inspired. It was at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. It was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue. Some of the criteria they used was that the author must have either been an apostle or the close associate of an apostle AND the document cannot contradict other “inspired” writings with respect to doctrinal teaching of The Church. I think I understand what you mean by "self authenticating" and I think we are in agreement on this matter.

You said: God decides who is humble and teachable. It is through this attitude that God is able to reveal Himself to individuals as they study His Scripture. Thus it is not man who decides "who is right" rather God. You are asking for absolutes and the only one able to provide that is God.

So I ask you. How do WE know who is humble, teachable and "right"? Does God ever reveal that to us and let us know who is RIGHT? If he never let's us know who is RIGHT then we can never know The Truth of Scripture? Once again your theory falls apart. I believe scripture. I believe The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The Church that was established on a rock. Not shifting sands or a weak foundation where no one knows who is right or what The Truth is. God is not hiding The Truth from us.

You said: All of us involved in the Catholic Church have more in agreement than do we differ, yet we are all under one Lord. Thus when we are to console the Church Catholic (Universal) we seek all who are in agreement with the core tenants of the Christian faith. So then there is only one Church, with many local congregations.

We seek all who are in agreement with the core tenants of the Christian faith to figure out who is right but yet "at no point does anyone know they have it right"? That statement is factually, historically and logically not true. There is not "one Church with many local congregations". If there is ONE Church they would all be ONE in teaching, doctrine and practice. There is not an agreement on the "core tenants of the Christian faith". Your statements contradict your "we don't know who is right" theory. You are saying two different things.

You asked me: You said the ECF disagreed and agreed...how do you decide which one to agree with, or do you let someone decide for you?

What I said was "a majority of those men AGREED on the key issues and The Catholic Church has adopted the doctrine of the majority of those men". I do not decide which "one" I agree with. The Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, decides who they agree with and AS I STATED The Church sided with the majority. I do not go shopping for ECF or theologians that agree with what I believe. If I did that then I would be a church of one by setting my own doctrines and beliefs. That is not biblical. That is not logical.

The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin is a good book about the ECF. I am also interested in any recommendations from you. I am always thirsty to learn. You can private message me your top three recommendations.

I agree we are off topic but we don't need to move this conversation to another thread. I doubt our conversation will produce any fruit.

kerwin · Nov 18, 2016

cga said:
My statements are scriptural,

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28 [NIV])

Christ is the visible representation of the invisible God, the Firstborn and Lord of all creation. (Colossians 1:15 [WNT])

Please consider believing what the scriptures teach, instead of trying to shun me away for merely repeating what the scriptures teach.

Your words are your interpretation of Scripture.

The question is whether or not they come from a human being or from God by way of the Spirit.

That is irrelevant since you unwanted in this forum which means you get to brush your feet off and go to a forum where you are more wanted.

You can choose to stay here and risk the wrath of those who moderate the board. That is your choice; for which you are accountable.

tom55 · Nov 18, 2016

justaname said:
Scripture will not contradict itself, only the interpretation has that capability (to contradict itself), thus we must use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Everyone who reads Scripture is an interpreter and applies a certain hermeneutic to the text. The main concept behind studying and interpreting Scripture is to remain humble and teachable. At no point does anyone "know they have it right". If interpreting the text were just that easy, there would only be one view in interpretation. Yet from before the reformation, from before the split between east and west, good theologians, Holy Spirit led individuals, have disagreed in regards to interpreting Scripture. Early Church Fathers have differing views in regard to the text. Thus we remain humble in regards to God's Holy Writ.

In exegesis one must keep in tack what is being said in the text without importing ideas or concepts into it, although this idea in itself is a particular hermeneutic that all do not follow when interpreting the text. Yet this is a widely accepted approach amongst conservative modern scholarship. So then as theologians attempt to exegete they may miss something in the text, or unwittingly make the text say something it did not. To be extremely dogmatic about a particular interpretation can prove you to be prideful about something you have concocted and not what God has intended in His word. (James 3:1) Here it is understandable why it is so important to be able to approach the text from it's original languages (Greek or Hebrew). At least then interpreters can view the syntax and grammar without being dependent on the translator doing that work for them. Know that as translators (not to be confused with interpreters) approach the text they must make certain theological decisions on how to translate from say Greek to (Insert Language).

Then it is important to console the Church Universal. We have a vast amount of Holy Spirt led theologians from the past that have gone on before us. It is good to understand that if theologians are introducing some unfound, brand new idea to the Scripture, it is likely an improper view or even heretical. Scripture has been under the theological lens for thousands of years, and numerous theologians have examined the Scriptures gaining profound insight illuming the text for others to glean from. It is only proper then to go back to the giants that have gone on before us and see how your interpretation stands against the test of time.

One last concept. There are many things that are clearly stated. For example a short verse: Jesus wept. I would argue this is clearly stated, yet others would argue Jesus didn't actually weep if in some way it contradicted their dogmatic doctrinal position. For some, Scripture can mean anything they want it to. Yet God has intended Scripture to conform to His holy communication, thus He used language, in its plain understandable context, to convey His message. So then as I, and many other theologians, approach the Scriptures, we humbly submit ourselves to it's plain meaning. We do not look for a "hidden" meaning or the allegorical or "spiritual" meaning, nor do we seek to understand what the text is saying to us personally. We make our best attempt to place ourselves in the sandals of time, to gain an understanding of what the original author was conveying to their original audience. Here the interpreter must bear the historical, geographical, and cultural significances the context may posses. Only after a thorough examination of the scripture by reading, and re-reading, only to repeat again and again, carefully considering all that is said in it's particular setting and context, prayerfully seeking to understand what God is presenting to the people it was written to in their time, place, and culture, searching out the arguments and themes the author has presented to the point of the passage being examined, then and only then can the interpreter bring forward the application to a contemporary audience.

Exegesis when properly executed and properly presented is not an easy task. It is not the work for everyone, yet everyone who claims to be a teacher of the word ought to be doing it. All this to say though, even through this approach, different exegetes have come to different conclusions or interpretations concerning certain passages. Yet the vast majority of theologians come to the same conclusions concerning matters of what we consider to be of "first importance" or orthodox Christian tenants. (e.g. the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by God's grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ) In this category all Catholic Christians agree.

I could go further into detail concerning this subject, yet there are many books that do a far greater job explaining it. If you are interested in some recommendations I could give you some.

I do not see an answer to my question. I will rephrase it since I do not feel I was clear the first time:

According to your theory YOU exegete Scripture and thru "proper" exegesis YOU form your doctrine/beliefs. But then later YOU are convinced that something in Scripture discredits your own doctrine/belief so you then change your doctrine/belief. My question is how can you ever know for sure if you have finally found the truth of Scripture or the right doctrine? If you didn't properly exegete Scripture the first time how do you know you did it properly the 2nd or 3rd or 4th time? The theory of predestination would be a good example. How do you know that 2 years from now while reading scripture you won't stumble upon 2-3 passages that destroy your belief on predestination? But then 2 years after that you find 2 passages that re-affirm your belief on predestination. How can you ever know if you are right??

the_sign · Nov 19, 2016

kerwin said:
You can choose to stay here and risk the wrath of those who moderate the board. That is your choice; for which you are accountable.

Matthew 20:

25 But Jesus called them aside and said,“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,and their superiors exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,…

7angels · Nov 20, 2016

back to the op. i have a series of questions. are all thing predetermined by God? if so why does God offer us a choice on whether or not to be saved? didn't God say He wanted all to be saved and yet there're those that are going to hell. is God a lier then? if things were controlled by God wouldn't everyone be saved?

second, once we decide to welcome Christ as our savior then don't we lose our free will? God wants us to only do good so doesn't that mean we have only one choice to choose from? to my understanding the only free will we have in serving God is when we choose to serve Him and after that we have free will of our own anymore.

third, if all things were not predetermined by God then how are there so many prophesies carried to completion? is it chance that all these things just happened to come to pass?

forth, so if everything is predetermined by God then does what we do in this world really matter since the outcomes are already predetermined?

fifth, how do we determine whether a choice make is predetermined? is it possible that no matter what we do will ultimately lead to God's plan for us, the world, and ect.

sixth, is it possible that the end result is already determined but how we get there depends upon our decisions we make. so if that is true then not everything is predetermined by God.

God bless
seven, is it possible for us to have a predetermined life and to live it out? do you believe each person's life is predetermined by God's choice or by our own choice? can we affect the change of our luck or is it predetermined?

cga · Nov 21, 2016

7angels said:
back to the op. i have a series of questions. are all thing predetermined by God? if so why does God offer us a choice on whether or not to be saved? didn't God say He wanted all to be saved and yet there're those that are going to hell. is God a lier then? if things were controlled by God wouldn't everyone be saved?

second, once we decide to welcome Christ as our savior then don't we lose our free will? God wants us to only do good so doesn't that mean we have only one choice to choose from? to my understanding the only free will we have in serving God is when we choose to serve Him and after that we have free will of our own anymore.

third, if all things were not predetermined by God then how are there so many prophesies carried to completion? is it chance that all these things just happened to come to pass?

forth, so if everything is predetermined by God then does what we do in this world really matter since the outcomes are already predetermined?

fifth, how do we determine whether a choice make is predetermined? is it possible that no matter what we do will ultimately lead to God's plan for us, the world, and ect.

sixth, is it possible that the end result is already determined but how we get there depends upon our decisions we make. so if that is true then not everything is predetermined by God.

God bless
seven, is it possible for us to have a predetermined life and to live it out? do you believe each person's life is predetermined by God's choice or by our own choice? can we affect the change of our luck or is it predetermined?

All things are indeed predetermined by God, yet a choice is offered to us to choose good or evil, so that then through whatever we choose God may then reward or punish. However, whatever we end up choosing, is what was predetermined by God to occur. God does not desire all to be saved, Jesus Christ does. God, the Father, has chosen a few for a salvation, and the rest for wrath, so that in each outcome he may demonstrate different attributes of himself in his own creation.

Predestination does not invalidate our need to act, no different that just because a movie has already been scripted, then the actors in the set do not need to act. Those that are are destined for salvation, have believed, have repented, have been filled with the spirit, and are full of good works, whereas those who are destined for destruction have not believed, nor have repented, nor have been filled with the spirit, and are full of works of wickedness. Each outcome was first preceded by a series of actions, all of which are part of what was predestined, not just the outcome, but every action leading to the outcome, is all predestined.

Predestination, All Things are Determined by God, Even the Outcome of a Roll of a Dice

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Love your neighbor as yourself

Love your neighbor as yourself

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Member

New Member

Member

Love your neighbor as yourself

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Love your neighbor as yourself

New Member

Love your neighbor as yourself

Member

Active Member

Member

Similar threads