Subjective or Objective Truth on a deserted island

[montanaman]

Angainor:

It isn’t going as quite as I expected, but I’m not sure what I expected.

I certainly did not expect someone to vote that Wilson was false in interpreting John 3:16 to mean

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

It’s not that–it’s just very open-ended, and after a while there are only so many new Protestant apologetical developments.

Who disagreed with the plain words on the page? I don’t think anyone said that’s a lie or false.

 

[Angainor]

montanaman:

It’s not that–it’s just very open-ended, and after a while there are only so many new Protestant apologetical developments.

Who disagreed with the plain words on the page? I don’t think anyone said that’s a lie or false.

I tried to make the poll as clear as I possibly could.

I tried to rule out any “new Protestant apologetical developments.” by saying

t****he sum total (no more, no less)** of Wilson’s interpretation**** of John 3:16** is…

Maybe they still misunderstood the question. I hope so.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The question is fallacious. Just as a definition cannot use the word to be defined in it, an interpretation cannot simply be the words that are being interpreted.

 

[Angainor]

Lazerlike42:

The question is fallacious. Just as a definition cannot use the word to be defined in it, an interpretation cannot simply be the words that are being interpreted.

I don’t understand this.

Why should rephrasing the idea be necessary to communicate your interpretation of the idea?

Language is used by humans to communicate an idea from one person to another. John is communicating an idea. It is not at all like a dictionary definition. The language itself should be enough to get the idea across. That is the whole point of language.

If Wilson has good Reading Comprehension skills, Wilson will correctly understand the idea that John is communicating. If Wilson has poor Reading Comprehension skills, Wilson is unlikely to correctly understand the idea that John is communicating.

Please assume Wilson has good Reading Comprehension skills. I also have to assume that all of you have good Reading Comprehension skills when I say that Wilson interprets John 3:16 to mean:For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Do you all have good Reading Comprehension skills?

 

[thistle]

Angainor:

I don’t understand this.

Why should rephrasing the idea be necessary to communicate your interpretation of the idea?

Language is used by humans to communicate an idea from one person to another. John is communicating an idea. It is not at all like a dictionary definition. The language itself should be enough to get the idea across. That is the whole point of language.

If Wilson has good Reading Comprehension skills, Wilson will correctly understand the idea that John is communicating. If Wilson has poor Reading Comprehension skills, Wilson is unlikely to correctly understand the idea that John is communicating.

Please assume Wilson has good Reading Comprehension skills. I also have to assume that all of you have good Reading Comprehension skills when I say that Wilson interprets John 3:16 to mean:For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Do you all have good Reading Comprehension skills?

If Wilson is an educated person and has good reading comprehension skills he would undoubtedly have heard of Christ.
If he hasn’t he wouldn’t even know it was a bible or what a bible is. How could he possibly understand or interpret anything?

 

[AquinasXVI]

Wilson would not chuck the Bible after reading John 3:16. He would go on and read the rest…given that he’s intuitive will read the other passages and notice that there are contradictions. Then he will say to himself: Gee, I wish I had someone who knew how to unlock and interpret these properly for me.

in XT.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Angainor:

I don’t understand this.

Why should rephrasing the idea be necessary to communicate your interpretation of the idea?

Language is used by humans to communicate an idea from one person to another. John is communicating an idea. It is not at all like a dictionary definition. The language itself should be enough to get the idea across. That is the whole point of language.

If Wilson has good Reading Comprehension skills, Wilson will correctly understand the idea that John is communicating. If Wilson has poor Reading Comprehension skills, Wilson is unlikely to correctly understand the idea that John is communicating.

Please assume Wilson has good Reading Comprehension skills. I also have to assume that all of you have good Reading Comprehension skills when I say that Wilson interprets John 3:16 to mean:For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Do you all have good Reading Comprehension skills?

Because that is not an interpretation. It is just quoting the statement. There are many issues with this one statement that would play into Wilson’s interpretation:

• What does it mean to believe?
• Does not perishing mean not physically dying?
• What does the world mean, the earth? The universe? All people? Jews and gentiles?
• Who are these people supposed to believe in, God, oir His Son?
• Who or what did He give His Son to?

All of these are parts of the interpretation. An interpretation is always actually much longer in terms of words than the statement that is being interpreted. You forget this because we all agree on 90% of the different details of an interpretation, because our theologies all agree in the majority of the basic foundational principles, and because we have read the rest of the Bible too.

It just so happens that we agree on Who the people must believe in, that eternal life does not exclude physical death, on who or what the Son was given to, and (probably) on what the word ‘world’ refers to.

What if the sum of Wilson’s interpretation was just as you quoted, but he thought that:

• The believers would never physically die
• The believers were supposed to believe only in the God
• God gave His Son up for adoption
• To “believe in Him” means to believe He can get the job done, but not to put personal faith or trust in Him, in the same way that a teacher may say of a student, “I believe in him?”

 

[VociMike]

Here is a good guess as to what Wilson would believe from that passage:

1. God (does he know what/who God is?) “gave” His Son. What does that mean? Gave Him to whom? Wilson will have no understanding whatsoever of what this actually means.
2. God’s Son is not God, but only His Son. Wilson will assume that Christ is not God, just as he, Wilson, is not his father. Wilson has entered the realm of major error here.
3. Wilson will not have any clear idea what “believe in Him” means. Wilson will take that to mean “believe that He exists”, which is necessary but not sufficient. So once again Wilson is in error.
4. Not perish, everlasting life. Wilson will certainly take this to mean that he will not die but that his human, physical life will go on forever here on earth. He will know that everybody, without exception, dies. Therefore he will either conclude that, regardless of the fact that everybody dies, he (alone?) will live forever in his physical body (error!), or he will reject the bible as fantastic nonsense (error!)

So Wilson will have absolutely no chance of understanding the passage correctly. His understanding will be totally false.

 

[Angainor]

AquinasXVI:

Wilson would not chuck the Bible after reading John 3:16. He would go on and read the rest…given that he’s intuitive will read the other passages and notice that there are contradictions…

Quite possibly.

But before that,

Wilson has interpreted John 3:16 to mean (no more, no less):
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Is this interpretation Subjective Truth, Objective Truth, or False?

 

[Angainor]

Lazerlike42:

What if the sum of Wilson’s interpretation was just as you quoted, but he thought that:

• The believers would never physically die
• The believers were supposed to believe only in the God
• God gave His Son up for adoption
• To “believe in Him” means to believe He can get the job done, but not to put personal faith or trust in Him, in the same way that a teacher may say of a student, “I believe in him?”

If Wilson’s interpretation included the idea that “God gave His Son up for adoption” I would have said Wilson’s interpretation included “God gave His Son up for adoption”.

 

[Angainor]

Listen everybody. You are making it way too difficult. This is not some Protestant ruse. Montanaman seems to have grasped the concept well enough.

montanaman:

Who disagreed with the plain words on the page? I don’t think anyone said that’s a lie or false.

If any Christian is asked “Did God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life”? A Christian should, without hesitation, say YES!

This is a true statement everybody, as-is, no qualifiers. As far as I’m concerned you can all take your your that-depends-ons and your what-do-you-mean-bys and throw them in the lake.

Catholics sneer at Protestants for allegedly being Subjectivist, but you guys wouldn’t recognize an Objective Truth if it bit you in the nose. Ladies and gentlemen, the plain words of John 3:16 are communicating Objective Truth.

I’ll give you all a second chance. Will anyone here give me a [thread=104893]big AMEN[/thread]?

 

[Angainor]

VociMike:

Here is a good guess as to what Wilson would believe from that passage:

1. God (does he know what/who God is?) “gave” His Son. What does that mean? Gave Him to whom? Wilson will have no understanding whatsoever of what this actually means.
2. God’s Son is not God, but only His Son. Wilson will assume that Christ is not God, just as he, Wilson, is not his father. Wilson has entered the realm of major error here.
3. Wilson will not have any clear idea what “believe in Him” means. Wilson will take that to mean “believe that He exists”, which is necessary but not sufficient. So once again Wilson is in error.
4. Not perish, everlasting life. Wilson will certainly take this to mean that he will not die but that his human, physical life will go on forever here on earth. He will know that everybody, without exception, dies. Therefore he will either conclude that, regardless of the fact that everybody dies, he (alone?) will live forever in his physical body (error!), or he will reject the bible as fantastic nonsense (error!)

So Wilson will have absolutely no chance of understanding the passage correctly. His understanding will be totally false.

Well VociMike, I see you gave me a [post=1419749]big AMEN[/post]! (meaning that you agree with me that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

You didn’t even ask me any of you above questions. How did you know if you agreed with me if you didn’t know my positions on those questions?

 

[RobNY]

Nnnooo,… I was trying to be of assistance by communicating to you the mental representation of the meaning of the text.

Isn’t this topic about Wilson’s interpretation of the text? Wilson’s interpretation of the text may square with the actual meaning of the text-- but that’s besides the point. (Unless by, “the mental representation” you meant, “Wilson’s mental representation.”)

If we are at odds, then one of us is wrong. It only says one thing.

Well, it says more than one thing. But it says no contradictory things. So, certainly, if we say opposing things one of us is wrong. And if one of us is wrong, then he certainly doesn’t hold objective truth.

Angainor:

Catholics sneer at Protestants for allegedly being Subjectivist,

Some Catholics do.

but you guys wouldn’t recognize an Objective Truth if it bit you in the nose.

I might if it hit me in the rear end.

Ladies and gentlemen, the plain words of John 3:16 are communicating Objective Truth.

Yes, but is Wilson receiving? Communication needs accurate sending and accurate receiving.

I’ll give you all a second chance. Will anyone here give me a [thread=104893]big AMEN[/thread]?

I agree wholeheartedly that John 3:16 is truth. I have no way of knowing that Wilson accurately received the truth that John 3:16 is communicating.

 

[Angainor]

RobNY:

I agree wholeheartedly that John 3:16 is truth. I have no way of knowing that Wilson accurately received the truth that John 3:16 is communicating.

How could you possibly not know? I communicated exactly what information Wilson received from John 3:16.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Is this information that Wilson received Objective Truth, Subjective Truth, or False?

 

[Jeanette_L]

Angainor:

How could you possibly not know? I communicated exactly what information Wilson received from John 3:16.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Is this information that Wilson received Objective Truth, Subjective Truth, or False?

I think the problem is that your options are not complete. You’re missing Partial Truth and Fullness of Truth.

Is this information that Wilson received :

Objective Truth
Subjective Truth
Fullness of Truth
Partial Truth
False

 

[Angainor]

Jeanette L:

I think the problem is that your options are not complete. You’re missing Partial Truth and Fullness of Truth.

Is this information that Wilson received :

Objective Truth
Subjective Truth
Fullness of Truth
Partial Truth
False

Which part of
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

is false? partial truth? subjective truth?

 

[JSmitty2005]

If I was Wilson, I’d probably be using the Bible to start a fire.

 

[Magicsilence]

Angainor:

How could you possibly not know? I communicated exactly what information Wilson received from John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Is this information that Wilson received Objective Truth, Subjective Truth, or False?

This is total truth, so long as Wilsons idea of what all the words meant were in accordance with what the Church has taken them to mean.

Ok?

In Christ.

Andre

 

[Magicsilence]

Angainor:

Maybe sometime in the future he will, who knows?

In the meantime, Wilson has interpreted John 3:16 to mean (no more, no less):For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Is this interpretation Subjective Truth, Objective Truth, or False?

His interpretation is totally correct and true as long as his idea as to what the words meant were fully in line with what the Church has always taught them to mean.

In Christ.

Andre

 

[JSmitty2005]

Angainor, regardless of what interpretation “Wilson” comes up with, John 3:16 does not mean that mere mental assent to Jesus as the Son of God will give us eternal life. After all, “even the demons believe that and tremble.” (James 2:19) We must believe in the Gospel in its entirety…which includes Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church.