The Pelagian Heresy is Alive and Well in America

[John Bauer]

Correct.

 

[makesends]

I've always understood provisionalism to be nothing more than Pelagianism with a Southern Baptist twist.

Like an intellectual-sounding name to put to the self-deterministic soteriology of the last 150 years or so.

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
Only in that "well-rendered scriptures" are not always intelligible to us,

1. It is pride that makes us think we understand more than we do.

That is true but no one has claimed to know more than they know. No one has even remotely claimed to know and understand all of God's revelation.

 

[Josheb]

2. Notice that I put the words, "well-rendered", in quotes.

Which normally means the prior post is being quoted, NOT that some rhetorical meaning is being assigned. The proverbial "finger quotes" are much different in meaning than actual quotation marks.

In other words, the "so called 'well-rendered' scriptures", or "the supposedly 'well-rendered' scriptures".

Which means the original statement was changed and then the change was commented on to fit an irrelevant viewpoint. It's called a strawman. I said "well-rendered" and I meant well rendered. I did not post or mean a rhetorical "well-rendered" as if those words had meaning other than their normal meaning in ordinary usage. In the stated context of exegesis, the phrase cannot be made to mean something is unintelligible. Furthermore, my point of dissent was simply well-rendered scripture is intelligible, and a rhetorical "well-rendered scripture" is an oxymoron...... and that is not being addressed in Post 79.

What I think is that some scriptures are not entirely understandable to us, and that in some sense, i.e. in its wholeness/entirety, it is not entirely understandable. At present, we do not know all.

And I disagree for the reasons already posted. Repeating your position does not further the conversation. You may think whatever you want to think but if what you think is inconsistent with either explicit statements of scripture or the logical necessities thereof then the thinking is incorrect and should be changed. I can take this one step at a time with you if you like.

Is scripture revelation from God?

 

[Josheb]

Well, good, then, because, after all, there was no contradiction.

Thinking revelation is unintelligibly unrevealing is a contradiction.

 

[makesends]

Thinking revelation is unintelligibly unrevealing is a contradiction.

Do you admit you don't understand all revelation? Of course you do. So, there's no contradiction. That is all I was saying.

 

[makesends]

Which normally means the prior post is being quoted, NOT that some rhetorical meaning is being assigned. The proverbial "finger quotes" are much different in meaning than actual quotation marks.

Ah! My bad. I shoulda used the scare quotes. I'm not going to the trouble to squabble further on this.

Which means the original statement was changed and then the change was commented on to fit an irrelevant viewpoint. It's called a strawman. I said "well-rendered" and I meant well rendered. I did not post or mean a rhetorical "well-rendered" as if those words had meaning other than their normal meaning in ordinary usage. In the stated context of exegesis, the phrase cannot be made to mean something is unintelligible. Furthermore, my point of dissent was simply well-rendered scripture is intelligible, and a rhetorical "well-rendered scripture" is an oxymoron...... and that is not being addressed in Post 79.

If you say so. Yes, that's dismissive. Use the report button.

And I disagree for the reasons already posted. Repeating your position does not further the conversation. You may think whatever you want to think but if what you think is inconsistent with either explicit statements of scripture or the logical necessities thereof then the thinking is incorrect and should be changed. I can take this one step at a time with you if you like.

Is scripture revelation from God?

Repeating your position does not further the conversation. Now, if you think you understand all of what God has revealed, we have no reason to further the conversation. If you do not, then we have no reason to continue this squabbling, as, rather obviously, from a few posts back, I did not mean what you are arguing against, which fact makes your argument sound to me like a strawman. It's like correcting one's spelling or punctuation when it is rather obvious what they were trying to say.

 

[makesends]

That is true but no one has claimed to know more than they know. No one has even remotely claimed to know and understand all of God's revelation.

Nor have I remotely claimed that none of it is understandable.

 

[Josheb]

Do you admit you don't understand all revelation?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with well-rendered scripture being unintelligible. Do you understand the difference between scripture not being understood and scripture not being intelligible?

Do you admit you don't understand all revelation?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with your claim you do not understand all revelation. I may understand parts of revelation you do not, and vice versa. The claim no one understands is wrong. Had you said no one understands ALL of scripture you'd have been accurate as far as that goes but it is still wrong to imply well-rendered scripture is not intelligible.

Of course you do. So, there's no contradiction. That is all I was saying.

Thinking revelation is unintelligibly unrevealing is a contradiction, and Post 86 wastes more space in the thread NOT addressing the problem.

Repeating your position does not further the conversation.

Neither does trying to change the subject or not answering valid questions when asked. The facts in evidence are that I have, in fact, added something new to each exchange. The problem is it's been ignored.

You said, "Only in that 'well-rendered scriptures' are not always intelligible to us, whereas, hopefully, the confessions and creeds are." That is incorrect. Well-rendered scripture is intelligible. Claiming the quotation marks are an indication of the scripture not being well rendered has nothing to do with what is stated in Post 72's metric.


A polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.


It is the antithesis of Post 72. There is no "so called" in that metric. You don't get to move the goalposts and then blame me. The words "so called" are conspicuously absent from Post 77. All effort to communicate Post 77's use of quotation marks to indicate is rhetorical and ridiculing not-actually-well-rendered is absent. As written, Post 77 is incorrect. Well-rendered scripture is always intelligible. It might not be understood by all, or agreed with by all, but it is intelligible. That is part of what it means to say something is rendered well (within the context of exegesis).

.....I did not mean what you are arguing against....

Which means Post 77 was misrepresentative and off-topic or was in need of clarification from its inception. In either case Post 77 should have been corrected without diversion.

 

[Josheb]

nt

 

[Josheb]

Nor have I remotely claimed that none of it is understandable.

(josh shakes head incredulously) You just got done resolving one mistake. The words "not always intelligible," literally means "it is not always understandable."

I should not have used the word, "intelligible", but "understandable"

That would not have resolved anything because if something is intelligible then t is by definition, understandable.



Let's start over.

Well-rendered scripture is intelligible and, therefore, understandable. So called "well-rendered" scripture may or may not be intelligible, understandable, or correct.

Yes? Is that what you meant to communicate?