Theology is too hard

Originally posted by frogstomp
It would be nice to actually have reliable scripture as a framework, however without a reliable framework any argument made from it is also unreliable as would be any resolution.

That's correct and what David C missed.

I agree that "without a reliable framework any argument made from it is also unreliable".

So if anyone who rejects scripture as reliable, they have a "trump" card. No matter how the arguments are going, even if they are loosing the argument, they can always play their trump card and say "well it does not matter because I don't believe the scriptures are a reliable framework for truth." Thus ending all debate and wasting everyones time.

However, there is always the "adoption" method of argument - and it is powerful. For the sake of argument, adopt (or assume true) your opponents fundamental premises (framework, axioms, presuppositions, first principles). Then based solely on those fundamentals, use sound reasoning to show that some position held leads necessarily to contradictions within those fundamentals. If you can demonstrate that your opponents first principles are contrary to any position they hold, then you have destroyed his argument.

If you want to have an honest debate on the issue of predestination - you should first adopt the first principle that predestination is based on. Then, you can argue that predestination is (or is not) contrary within the framework that results from those first principles. And the first principle of predestination is the reliability of scripture. To argue honestly against predestination, one needs to show it is contrary to scripture. Otherwise, there is no point in arguing the issue - just reject scripture and you're done - no augment.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's correct and what David C missed.

I agree that "without a reliable framework any argument made from it is also unreliable".

So if anyone who rejects scripture as reliable, they have a "trump" card. No matter how th ...[text shortened]... ue - just reject scripture and you're done - no augment.

You need to debate what's in scripture with people that have an opposite view, under the rules of debate you set up. Frankly, I dont have the time to research arguments pro or con.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You need to debate what's in scripture with people that have an opposite view, under the rules of debate you set up. Frankly, I dont have the time to research arguments pro or con.

It would be a good debate.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's correct and what David C missed.

I agree that "without a reliable framework any argument made from it is also unreliable".

So if anyone who rejects scripture as reliable, they have a "trump" card. No matter how the arguments are going, even if they are loosing the argument, they can always play their trump card and say "well it do ...[text shortened]... is no point in arguing the issue - just reject scripture and you're done - no augment.

Perhaps. I will concede that I see your point.

Problem is, you and your ilk have invented the closed argument ("trump" card, if you will). By your definition, how can anyone debate the contents of your little story book if we do not believe in its' divinity beforehand?

Originally posted by David C
Perhaps. I will concede that I see your point.

Problem is, you and your ilk have invented the closed argument ("trump" card, if you will). By your definition, how can anyone debate the contents of your little story book if we do not believe in its' divinity beforehand?

You can. I may not have been clear on this, but anyone can debate if a particular doctrine is biblical by assuming the framework of scripture. So one can say (for example) that the doctrine of the Trinity is false because of the bible says x, y, and z - where x, y, and z are (or include) references to scripture.

To say that "the doctrine of the trinity" is false because the bible is false brings in a prior issue - the first premise that the scriptures are inspired and reliable. This issue should be a separate debate.

One does not necessarily need to personally believe the Bible is inspired and reliable to debate biblical doctrine, just assume it for argument sake.

Originally posted by Coletti
You can. I may not have been clear on this, but anyone can debate if a particular doctrine is biblical by assuming the framework of scripture. So one can say (for example) that the doctrine of the Trinity is false because of the bible sa ...[text shortened]... le to debate biblical doctrine, just assume it for argument sake.

This would be an "academic" debate, yes?
The reason I ask is that the assumption made, ie that scripture is reliable, is a pretty large assumption.
Let's assume that, for sake of argument, I agree to assume that Mien Kampf is reliable and lose a debate with some neo-Nazis regarding some point.
What has happened? Nothing, because Mein Kampf is not reliable.
Please note I am NOT trying to be cute here and compare you or anyone else here to Nazis, I'm just using this extreme example to attempt to make the point that these types of debates are merely academic, an excercise of the mind.
If, at the end of the debate, I say "I don't care if I lost because Mein Kampf is hogwash", have I pulled a "trump card", as you put it?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
This would be an "academic" debate, yes?
The reason I ask is that the assumption made, ie that scripture is reliable, is a pretty large assumption.
Let's assume that, for sake of argument, I agree to assume that Mien Kampf ...[text shortened]... ] is hogwash", have I pulled a "trump card", as you put it?[/i]

I understand. The inspiration and reliability of scripture is a central tenant of Christianity as I see it. It is an axiom in my "world view". I can not prove it is a correct axiom in any absolute sense - but it is worthy of debate and discussion.

And I think everyone has similar axioms from which they justify the details of their beliefs. Axioms are the foundations of epistemology and metaphysics. And it is from them one can argue what we think we know and how we know it. Without knowing them, one can not justify knowing anything at all - or why anyone should consider anything they say.

As for Mein Kampf- if you lose a debate using it as a basis - what has been shown is maybe your opponent understands it better than you do. Now suppose you opponent really believes Mein Kampf is good stuff - winning the debate could be a devastating blow to his belief system - for you may have shown an internal inconsistency or contradiction.

Originally posted by Coletti
I understand. The inspiration and reliability of scripture is a central tenant of Christianity as I see it. It is an axiom in my "world view". I can not prove it is a correct axiom in any absolute sense - but it is worthy of debate and discussion.

And I think everyone has similar axioms from which they justify the details of their beliefs. Axioms ...[text shortened]... blow to his belief system - for you may have shown an internal inconsistency or contradiction.

The debate should be narrowed to "Is the truth of the doctrine of predestination the most likely conclusion of the Holy Bible"? That does not confirm or deny the veracity of Scripture, but merely makes the argument one which looks to the intent of the authors of the documents. We've had interpretative debates of the Bible before under this framework, why not now? Of course, I suspect in the end it will come down to the Secret Decoder Ring Defense like most of those debates do, but hey, give it a shot. I'm curious to see a Scriptural defense of predestination.

Originally posted by Coletti
I understand. The inspiration and reliability of scripture is a central tenant of Christianity as I see it. It is an axiom in my "world view". I can not prove it is a correct axiom in any absolute sense - but it is worthy of debate and discussion.

And I think everyone has similar axioms from which they justify the details of their beliefs. Axioms ...[text shortened]... blow to his belief system - for you may have shown an internal inconsistency or contradiction.

The difference between your axiom, and the axioms of epistemology and metaphysics is that the denial of your axiom doesn't lead to a contradiction. I can easily imagine Scripture being nonsense, as can you and everybody else. You cannot even imagine the Law of Non-Contradiction being false, or Modus Ponens not being a necessarily truth-preserving form of inference.

Originally posted by bbarr
The difference between your axiom, and the axioms of epistemology and metaphysics is that the denial of your axiom doesn't lead to a contradiction. I can easily imagine Scripture being nonsense, as can you and everybody else. You cannot even imagine the Law of Non-Contradiction being false, or Modus Ponens not being a necessarily truth-preserving form of inference.

The Law of Non-contradiction is one of my axioms. Only fools deny the Law of Non-contradiction.

But one must have more than the Law of Non-contradiction. Laws of logic in themselves do no give us knowledge. They need some content to operate upon. More first principles are required.

Originally posted by Coletti
The Law of Non-contradiction is one of my axioms. Only fools deny the Law of Non-contradiction.

But one must have more than the Law of Non-contradiction. Laws of logic in themselves do no give us knowledge. They need some content to operate upon. More first principles are required.

I guess you're not interested in arguing your predestination belief from Scripture. More's the pity; maybe even the RCC crowd could have joined in.

- The Shadow

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess you're not interested in arguing your predestination belief from Scripture. More's the pity; maybe even the RCC crowd could have joined in.

- The Shadow

Yes, it would be more interesting to have people who take the Bible as reliable to debate this, or at least be on both sides.