General Question about various beliefs held by various people

[njd83]

I would definitely debate whether a person who accepts evolution or believes Calvinism can claim reading the text as plainly written. I know people say "they just believe what the Bible says"--I've heard that quite often ever since I became a theist. Totally agree. But those two ideas seem to be a "no way you can claim to read the text as plainly written and as plainly meant to be understood" in my opinion. Its definitely eisegesis. They even admit to taking certain texts as "non literal", both Calvinists and Theistic Evolutionists. But was written to be taken as "non literal" and did Jews, Jesus, Apostles and early church take it as non literal?

I would really like to see though what you mean with your argument, in terms of how every single group that claims to read the bible and takes it as plainly written fits the bill. I would hope the ideal that God says what he means and that we have the capacity to understand the meaning of the Bible is not some idealistic illusive ideal. =)

Personally, I would like to see how someone like me has the same contradiction. If you have any insights, please post them.

You make the statement. Now I have to read through the text and analyze myself to see how I am not taking it as "plainly written". This may take a while.

Look, I could be wrong about evolution. I'm willing to admit that. The circumstantial evidence for me is significant—overwhelming really. Because even using the same building blocks, it would not be hard for God to simply break even a conceivable logical chain of heredity between living things.

You know the same logic for "common descent" is used for "common designer". Why would God literally create biology so different between each creature that they'd be like aliens to each other biologically speaking. (remember we all eat the same food, need to break it down) Similarities among biology can also just be explained by how engineers also use similar designs when they make other products. Why can't God the Engineer make humans with similar coding for proteins found in other organisms? They usually do similar things anyway. Does he have to reinvent the protein factory wheel every time he creates a new creature? There are like hundreds of thousands of creatures. Given the limits of this physical universe with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc, I don't even think God could create 100,000+ completely differently engineered proteins in 100,000 completely different organisms that do exactly the same thing. There are limits in this physical universe--such as, you can't really create a living organism based on silicon instead of carbon. And this one protein would be only one specific protein doing one specific job. There are thousands and thousands of proteins and other biomolecules.

What exactly would you expect God to do differently, engineering wise, to prove there is no evolution, no common descent? It would be expected of God to do something physically and biologically impossible for onlookers to have evidence of a designer and not common descent.

Really think about what is being said when its concluded the biological/phylogenic similarities point to common descent. What would the alternative actually be such that no one could even conceive of common descent? The proof is in the pudding. A common designer can use similar designs, but the pudding is lacking genomic mechanisms for the increase in information of the genome which evolution would need, and so common descent is hand waving, a just so story. Its only circumstantial evidence, and its also the exact same evidence used to point to a common designer.

As in, there is no contradiction in the view that the world was created by God, Adam and Even created from dust by God, etc etc. Both views use the same evidence of genetic similarities as part of their view. One as common descent, the other as common designer. As far as I know, its not "more proof" of one view over the other. The lack of the genomic mechanisms needed is the really nail in the coffin. Self organization is a far cry.

[njd83]

Reposting a smaller section for thought:


chapter 2, God of the Possible

“I Thought You’d Return”

Several other examples of the Lord confronting the unexpected are found in Jeremiah. Beholding Israel’s remarkable obstinacy, the Lord says, “I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me’; but she did not return” (Jer. 3:6–7). He repeats his dismay to Israel several verses later: “I thought how I would set you among my children.… And I thought you would call me, ‘My Father,’ and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife … you have been faithless to me” (Jer. 3:19–20).
We need to ask ourselves seriously, how could the Lord honestly say he thought Israel would turn to him if he was always certain that they would never do so? If God tells us he thought something was going to occur while being eternally certain it would not occur, is he not lying to us? If God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18) and yet tells us he thought something would occur that did not occur, doesn’t this imply that the future contains possibilities as well as certainties?
Some have tried to avoid this conclusion by pointing out that the Hebrew word āmar can be translated as “said.” But this doesn’t help the classical view of divine foreknowledge. It only transfers the problem of God thinking something was going to happen that didn’t happen, to him saying he expected something to happen that he knew would not happen.


Infallibly Knowing Probabilities

Do these verses imply that God is mistaken? They certainly do if you assume that the future is exhaustively settled ahead of time. In this case, God would be wrong for expecting one thing to occur when it was a settled fact that another thing was certainly going to occur. But no mistake is implied if you believe that the future is partly open.
If the future consists in part of possibilities, then God can infallibly think that a particular possibility has the greatest chance of occurring, even if it turns out that a less likely possibility actually occurs. Since God is omniscient, he always knew that it was remotely possible for his people to be this stubborn, for example. But he genuinely did not expect them to actualize this remote possibility. He authentically expected that they’d be won over by his grace. God wasn’t caught off guard (for he knew this stubbornness was possible), but he was genuinely disappointed (for he knew the possibility was improbable and hoped it wouldn’t come to pass).
The open view of God can thus understand these verses without detracting in any way from God’s omniscience. If the future is exhaustively settled in God’s mind, however, then no clear sense can be made out of these verses, for there are no real possibilities to God; there are only certainties. In the classical view, God’s expectations can never be different from what transpires.


It “Never Entered My Mind”

Several other passages in Jeremiah confirm this. Three times the Lord expresses shock over Israel’s ungodly behavior by saying that they were doing things “which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind” (Jer. 19:5; see also 7:31; 32:35). However we understand the phrase “nor did it enter my mind,” it would at the very least seem to preclude the possibility that the Israelites’ idolatrous behavior was eternally certain in God’s mind. If the classical view is correct, we have to be willing to accept that God could in one breath say that the Israelites’ behavior “did not enter my mind,” though their behavior “was eternally in my mind.” If this is not a contradiction, what is?

[dizerner]

I would really like to see though what you mean with your argument, in terms of how every single group that claims to read the bible and takes it as plainly written fits the bill. I would hope the ideal that God says what he means and that we have the capacity to understand the meaning of the Bible is not some idealistic illusive ideal. =)

Personally, I would like to see how someone like me has the same contradiction. If you have any insights, please post them.

The fact that you exempt yourself is telling of your bias and cognitive dissonance; everybody else does it, but not me! Others have excuses, I have my reasons! if you had admitted you did that too, I know you had the humility and honesty you were not a perfect person and might not know your own motivations and limitations.

I don't believe in any such thing as a "literal" or "plain" reading. All words must be interpretive; the same words can mean different things, intended by the author. And that's just with regular grammar. If we add spiritual and metaphysical meanings and interpretations on top of that, it becomes even more impossible to figure out. And that fact that so many Christians disagree, but your powerful brain has figured it all out and put them in place? Pride.

See, I didn't come to my beliefs with my brain at all. Jesus had to open their minds, the natural man does not receive spiritual things, God's thoughts are as high over mine as the heavens above the earth. I need light, I need help, I need outside guidance, I can't let my mind wander, is far too small to wander on its own. Paul did not pray that his audience "study logic and exegesis even harder," but that God "opened the eyes of their heart."

A wise man once said, he who knows the most knows just how little he knows. And even more so in the Bible. I can not just literally believe "whatsoever I ask I will receive" in isolation all by itself. Look at the all NT reinterpretations of OT passages; could I have ever figured out the abstract applications by just thinking hard enough? Would I really come up with the blessing of Abraham being the culmination of God becoming a man and pouring his Spirit out?

I can't make you see. I can't make me see. I can't make anyone see.

God have mercy on us all.

[dizerner]

you might find this thread interesting

https://forums.carm.org/threads/nobody- ... says.2345/

[njd83]

Why do you think that using the mind is always a pride thing?

[dizerner]

Why do you think that using the mind is always a pride thing?

Because we all have a sin nature, so this is our default inclination, as it says the heart is deceitful above all things.

And the mind is not relying on God, it's not submitted and dependent, it's self-reliance.

But this is personal for me, because I became very mental for a couple of decades in my spiritual walk, and it took a miracle for me to see my true heart.

The true humble response to the idea one might be prideful is to ask "God, am I? Only you know."

As soon as a person is quite convinced they know their own heart, this is the sure sign.

My only motivation is to help someone avoid the pitfalls I fell into.

[njd83]

This is very disheartening and discouraging.

I have been trying to figure out how to understand this Deity ever since my near death out of body experience about 15 years ago.

I am very convinced the Bible is the reliable book we have from God.

I read the Bible first in the NIV which is not very literal. That was confusing right there, realizing later that the words in the original we're not the same words. I heard different sermons saying very different things about God. That was very confusing. I attended a reformed church for years. That was frustrating while comparing the sermon's interpretation to the reading of the text myself. Having many discussions with an elder whom I like very much about these ideas, with no resolution. I've read John Wesley and many sermons from holiness preachers to arminians to Calvinists/reformed. Attended a non-denominational church for years who just preach what the text says even though admittedly two different sermons seem to contradict each other.

Text says to love God with all your mind, and you accuse me of Pride for trying to get coherent understanding of God. What would I actually get in return if I did use my big brain and understand God coherently? You seem to think my ego will skyrocket like a megalomaniac. Do you think that's why I am doing it? Are you judging my intentions? You know what I will get? Peace. Peace that this mysterious Deity who died on a cross, and came into my life, actually makes sense, and is not this Biblical Bully the atheists have complained about for centuries.

In the last couple months I came across Boyds open view in some YouTube video or something. The Open View is literally the only view that makes the most coherent sense out of the whole bible as well as my own experience and other people.

I had already learned in the past about the "interpreting the text as plainly written and as plainly meant to be understood" idea from creation.com, and that helped a lot. But other theological things were still unresolved for a long time until recently.

You say only spiritual dicernment can get someone to the correct understanding. That's fine. I don't discount this point at all. My question is then, why are the most spiritual people still at variance in theology? Like is there anyone who is spiritual enough on earth we can sit at the feet to understand the texts and get a coherent understanding of God? You will say "God is higher than us, we just accept things by faith, it's a mystery we cannot understand"

=(

[njd83]

Another verse started to make more sense recently, since I have entertained the Open View.

Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

-Hebrews 4:16

I think people may speak out what they think they believe, but they will act upon what they really believe in their heart. I find that to be pretty true.

Any doubts I have hidden about God in my heart--e.g. that he may have some Bully character to him--makes me not able to really receive this verse in full. The Open View puts 100% of the responsibility of sin and its consequences on created beings. 0% on God. Other people may be able to hold Complete and Exhaustive Foreknowledge and still put 0% responsibility on God (in their heart), but I cannot. It makes me reserved towards God. I may be heady in some ways, but it just doesn't make sense. I've experienced the loving presence God, but intellectually many of these different theologies have tripped me up.

I can actually not hold any doubt about God or blame God if I entertain the Open View. I have explained some of my own logical conclusions due to this Open View in this thread in being able to read the text as plainly written and as plainly meant to be understood. Not trying to frequently explain away all kinds of stuff. Verses start to clear up and make sense. I feel more like the Open View God is the God of the texts and the many examples of peoples spiritual experiences with the Divine. =(

[Homer]

njd83,

I sympathize you in this matter but one thing I do not get is why God can not have advance knowledge of what a free will person will freely choose to do in the future.

Be Blessed, Homer

[dizerner]

You say only spiritual dicernment can get someone to the correct understanding. That's fine. I don't discount this point at all.

You DID discount this point, and then turn around and accused me of judging you.

I said all people have a sin nature, and anyone that claims to know their own heart is not demonstrating humility—that's a matter of fact not a personal judgment.

I'm sad you didn't hear what I am saying and turned to attack me. Do YOU think that demonstrates humility?

God bless you brother, and I recommend spending quality time with God instead of with sermons and books.

Wishing you the best.