The greatest error on bb

[Luke2427]

I figured it out. This one thing I think is the reason for MOST of the frustration and lack of progress in all of these debates.

It is a shirking of logic.

If logic is not binding then debate and discussion is utterly MEANINGLESS.

This is how posters like Winman, webdog, Skandelon and Van get away with saying things that cannot be true.

They simply relegate logic to a fallible, man-made invention and say things that sound so tremendously spiritual and divinely transcendent that less thoughtful people swallow it hook, line and sinker. They say things like- God is not bound by human logic!!

Doesn't that sound spiritual?

Why, it even seems to exalt God so it must be right, right?

If you are simply guided by such shallow rules of right and wrong as "it feels right" and "I like the sound of that" then yes- to you it is going to be right.

Except that in the REAL world, the one God made- it is NOT RIGHT AT ALL.

Logic is NOT a man made invention.

It is NOT a tool man has fashioned to help him understand some things.

Logic comes from God.

Logic is as much OF God as love is of God.

God is logical just like God is loving.

That's how we can take him at his word and rest assured that he will never contradict himself. He is HIMSELF the law of noncontradiction. He isn't BOUND by the law as if the law exists before or above him so that he must always conform himself to it. No. That is another terrible mistake that is made on baptistboard.

No, the law simply emanates FROM him- just like love and justice.

Now, Winman will say- SHOW ME THAT IN THE BIBLE! as if he is always Bible centered and Calvinists just "follow a man"

But what he will have missed is that I just did. It IS the whole Bible. The only reason we can trust God's word at ALL is because God is logical- he does not contradict himself.

So, pick a verse- any one of the roughly 55,000 verses- EVERY ONE of them screams "Believe me because God does not contradict himself!"

The law of noncontradiction.

This is one reason why Jesus is identified as the eternal LOGOS in the Bible.

He is true.


So what does this mean to non-cals?

It means you don't get to say, and hope to be thought of as reasonable and accurate, that God can be ALL-KNOWING eternally and not know something at the same time.

That's ILLOGICAL which is as bad as saying God is not loving or holy.

You cannot have God being one thing and not being that thing at the same time.



God cannot be divinely sovereign in, above, and through everything and not in control at the same time.

That's illogical- or in other words ungodly (not god-like).


Conclusion of the matter-

If you believed in logic; in other words, if you believed in truth, you would, it seems to me, not be a non-cal.


Here is a great article on this issue of logic's infallibility.

http://www.dougwils.com/Postmodernism/the-ultimacy-of-right-reason.html

 

[MB]

I figured it out. This one thing I think is the reason for MOST of the frustration and lack of progress in all of these debates.

It is a shirking of logic.

If logic is not binding then debate and discussion is utterly MEANINGLESS.

This is how posters like Winman, webdog, Skandelon and Van get away with saying things that cannot be true.

They simply relegate logic to a fallible, man-made invention and say things that sound so tremendously spiritual and divinely transcendent that less thoughtful people swallow it hook, line and sinker. They say things like- God is not bound by human logic!!

Doesn't that sound spiritual?

Oh I don't know look at what you post. As far as quality you've been topped. I'm really hurt you left me out of your critique.
MB

 

[Luke2427]

Oh I don't know look at what you post. As far as quality you've been topped. I'm really hurt you left me out of your critique.
MB

I don't know what this means.

 

[preachinjesus]

The problem isn't logic (though it is highly ironic that a post critique folks for logical fallacies acctually has within its critique logical fallacies) but talking past each other and the arrogance of one's opinion.

I'm not Reformed (or a Calvinist.) My position is informed by significant work in theology, countless hours of research and prayerful contemplation, and working through various arguments by any number of authors. While my research has been highly informed by logical categories I have come to a markedly different conclusion than many. In light of our disagreements I respectably consider others' positions and contend, always, for coherency in belief.

I don't think the issue is logical error. These issues have caused disagreement among believers for eons. All sides have sound, biblical argumentation (some more than others imho) and do not suffer from a lack of logical rigor.

 

[MB]

I don't know what this means.

Can't you use your fantastic logic to work it out. The fact is that anything spiritual cannot be logical because, spirits do not exist in a logical world. Spirits just are not logical. Guess what God is Spirit and therefore not logical. Only Jesus Christ saves and that isn't logical either. How ever it is true. Oh that's illogical too.
MB

 

[quantumfaith]

Luke, although I probably agree with you that logic "came from God", I must have missed that scripture that explicitly states such. Where is that?

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, although I probably agree with you that logic "came from God", I must have missed that scripture that explicitly states such. Where is that?

I anticipated Winman would say that and I preempted that with a response in the OP.

Just read the preemptive response to Winman in the OP.

 

[Winman]

Luke's post is comical. My argument against Calvinism is that it is not logical. For example, Calvinism teaches that a man has spiritual life before he believes on Jesus. That is absolutely illogical, as the wages of sin is death, and until your sins are forgiven you MUST be spiritually dead in sin. A man must believe to be forgiven his sins, to be justified. There is no way a man can be spiritually alive until he believes and all his sins are removed. It is Luke and Calvinists that hold MANY illogical positions.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus said a man who has not believed is CONDEMNED ALREADY. How can he be spiritually alive? Impossible and illogical, but Luke believes a man is alive before he believes.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.


Jesus said until a man believes, he shall die in his sins, but Luke teaches that men have spiritual life before they believe. This is illogical.

The reason Luke doesn't like me is BECAUSE my arguments are logical. The truth is logical. He cannot argue with the truth, that is why he especially cannot stand me.

 

[Luke2427]

The problem isn't logic (though it is highly ironic that a post critique folks for logical fallacies acctually has within its critique logical fallacies) but talking past each other and the arrogance of one's opinion.

I'm not Reformed (or a Calvinist.) My position is informed by significant work in theology, countless hours of research and prayerful contemplation, and working through various arguments by any number of authors. While my research has been highly informed by logical categories I have come to a markedly different conclusion than many. In light of our disagreements I respectably consider others' positions and contend, always, for coherency in belief.

I don't think the issue is logical error. These issues have caused disagreement among believers for eons. All sides have sound, biblical argumentation (some more than others imho) and do not suffer from a lack of logical rigor.

The reason you are wrong is because these debates, if allowed, always come down to whether of not God can be something and not be that something at the same time.

The Openness theology guys (and the closet ones) contend that they believe God knows all things but that he doesn't know WHICH thing.

Well, that is illogical.

The Arminian and "non-cal" (whatever that is) contends that Gos is SO sovereign that he is not in control of billions of things that happen every day in the world.

That's illogical.

And no matter what the debate between Calvinists and "non-cals" on this board, it always ultimately, followed through to it's end, winds up on matters such as these.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke's post is comical. My argument against Calvinism is that it is not logical. For example, Calvinism teaches that a man has spiritual life before he believes on Jesus.

I hope some of your non-cal brethren who are immeasurably more knowledgeable than you on these matters will help you with this because you are not going to be helped by me.

What you site here is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of scripture interpretation.

You don't understand what logic is.

Hopefully, quantum will help you here.

 

[DHK]

I figured it out. This one thing I think is the reason for MOST of the frustration and lack of progress in all of these debates.

It is a shirking of logic.

If logic is not binding then debate and discussion is utterly MEANINGLESS.

I agree Luke. But the same applies to you. Do you think that your arguments are always logical. The neo-Calvinists--mostly which is advocated here--is void of much logic, and that includes you.
Here is an example from your own post:

God cannot be divinely sovereign in, above, and through everything and not in control at the same time.

1. It is not a logical statement in and of itself.
2. It limits an omnipotent God who can do all things.
3. Why would you start a statement that says "God cannot..." when the truth is "God can..."
Who are you to limit God? Are you greater than He?
The truth here is that your self-imposed neo-Calvinistic beliefs are limiting the omnipotence of God.

What is one of the basic differences between man and animals?
Man is made in the image and likeness of God.
What does that mean? What does it entail?
It means that God has given man the ability to glorify God, to choose to worship him or not to worship him--as Lucifer in heaven did; as Adam chose to rebel against God.
God never forced Adam to sin, or Lucifer to rebel.
They chose of their own free will to do so.

God does not make us robots forcing us to do good, glorifying him. It must come from our own choice.

I know that you will point to man's inability to do so because of his "deadness," but the typical neo-Calvinist of today has a problem with the word "dead." If a man is dead in sins it doesn't mean he is as a corpse and lifeless. That is where your logic falls apart (or the typical Calvinist). "Dead" simply means "separation." The unsaved is separated from God. He must be regenerated. To put it even more accurately: This dead and alienated soul must be reconciled to God through the process of regeneration which can only happen through the process of the life-giving power of the Word (the gospel) as it is made alive by the Holy Spirit. That is what the new birth is all about--reconciliation.

Death means "separation." The spirit is separated from God. It is reconciled through regeneration which happens at the same time as salvation. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

Thus in the grand scheme of God's sovereignty God has given man a free will, being made in his image, that he may choose or reject Christ as his Savior. He is Almighty and able to do this. We cannot limit God just because of our theological system which wants to prevent him from doing so. That is illogical.

 

[Winman]

The reason you are wrong is because these debates if allowed to always come down to whether of not God can be something and not be that something at the same time.

The Openness theology guys (and the closet ones) contend that they believe God knows all things but that he doesn't know WHICH thing.

Well, that is illogical.

The Arminian and "non-cal" (whatever that is) contends that Gos is SO sovereign that he is not in control of billions of things that happen every day in the world.

That's illogical.

And no matter what the debate between Calvinists and "non-cals" on this board, it always ultimately, followed through to it's end, winds up on matters such as these.

Luke, many times the Lord speaks as if he knows something in time. You cannot simply dismiss scripture like this, but should try to understand it.

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Here God told Abraham that he would go down and observe Sodom and Gomorrah to see whether they had done altogether according to the cry of it, and if so, he would NOW know.

I don't simply dismiss scripture like this because it may not agree with someone else's view. I believe God knows what he is saying, and it is my duty to study and understand scripture like this.

All I can say is that scripture shows God limits himself and his attributes at times, as when he wrestled against Jacob and Jacob prevailed. I don't think God threw the fight, I believe God was in a limited human form and that Jacob actually won the wrestling match. You probably will not accept this, so we will have to disagree.

I do not see why God would tell us he lost a wrestling match to Jacob unless it were true. God does not lie.

Likewise, it seems at times God came down and limited his omniscience. God must limit himself in front of men, or men would die on the spot. God could not allow Moses to look on his "glory", but we are told God and Moses spoke face to face like friends. So, God must have limited himself and masked his glory when he spoke to Moses face to face.

But you can't simply explain away scripture that you don't understand.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree Luke. But the same applies to you. Do you think that your arguments are always logical. The neo-Calvinists--mostly which is advocated here--is void of much logic, and that includes you.
Here is an example from your own post:

1. It is not a logical statement in and of itself.
2. It limits an omnipotent God who can do all things.

An omnipotent God CANNOT do all things BECAUSE he is omnipotent.

For example, an omnipotent God cannot make himself powerless.

3. Why would you start a statement that says "God cannot..." when the truth is "God can..."

So God can sin, die, cease to exist, etc...?

No. It is a fallacy for you to think that logic dictates that omnipotence means the one possessing it can do ANYTHING.

Your premise is false.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, many times the Lord speaks as if he knows something in time. You cannot simply dismiss scripture like this, but should try to understand it.

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Here God told Abraham that he would go down and observe Sodom and Gomorrah to see whether they had done altogether according to the cry of it, and if so, he would NOW know.

I don't simply dismiss scripture like this because it may not agree with someone else's view. I believe God knows what he is saying, and it is my duty to study and understand scripture like this.

All I can say is that scripture shows God limits himself and his attributes at times, as when he wrestled against Jacob and Jacob prevailed. I don't think God threw the fight, I believe God was in a limited human form and that Jacob actually won the wrestling match. You probably will not accept this, so we will have to disagree.

I do not see why God would tell us he lost a wrestling match to Jacob unless it were true. God does not lie.

Likewise, it seems at times God came down and limited his omniscience. God must limit himself in front of men, or men would die on the spot. God could not allow Moses to look on his "glory", but we are told God and Moses spoke face to face like friends. So, God must have limited himself and masked his glory when he spoke to Moses face to face.

But you can't simply explain away scripture that you don't understand.

I am not going to waste time expounding upon your dismal ability to exegete passages properly.

We have proven to all objective people that you do not know how to handle Scripture.

It may be that you, and those few who wish to court you for their own purposes, are the only ones on baptistboard who take your handling of Scripture remotely seriously.

So, instead, I will simply ask you what conclusion you think your exegesis leads to.

Do you think this means that God DID NOT KNOW BEFOREHAND what would happen?

And if so do you still contend to embrace the doctrine of God's omniscience?

 

[Winman]

An omnipotent God CANNOT do all things BECAUSE he is omnipotent.

For example, an omnipotent God cannot make himself powerless.

Wrong, God lost a wrestling match to Jacob, a mortal man.

So God can sin, die, cease to exist, etc...?

Jesus said if he denied he knew his Father he would be a liar, which suggests that in theory he could lie.

Jesus is God, and he died on the cross.

No. It is a fallacy for you to think that logic dictates that omnipotence means the one possessing it can do ANYTHING.

Your premise is false.

And Jesus himself refutes you.

 

[DHK]

An omnipotent God CANNOT do all things BECAUSE he is omnipotent.

For example, an omnipotent God cannot make himself powerless.

So God can sin, die, cease to exist, etc...?

No. It is a fallacy for you to think that logic dictates that omnipotence means the one possessing it can do ANYTHING.

Your premise is false.

Have you ever studied the secular religions such as atheism?
Why are you putting up the same arguments an atheist would use?

My premise is not false; but yours is.
One can see that it is false even on the basis that you didn't even try to refute it.
Your arguments are flimsy and not from Scripture. Like I said, they are the same as the atheist's. Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift?
That is no argument at all. I have heard it all before, and I can take the time to refute the absurd. But I an not going to do that because I know you can do better than that.

 

[Benjamin]

Luke's post is comical.

It certainly is! Glad I stopped by to see this:

I figured it out...

Conclusion of the matter-

If you believed in logic; in other words, if you believed in truth, you would, it seems to me, not be a non-cal.

[Rhetorical Horse Laugh]:laugh: Luke, thanks for the laugh! :laugh: [/Rhetorical Horse Laugh] But seriously - Dude, you are far from figuring it out buddy; please stop trying to pretend to have any sort of formal education whatsoever in this area and do take a course in basic logic and critical thinking skills before you unwittingly embarrass yourself even further. Through observing your typical debate tactics here it is painfully obvious to us that know better that you have little to no understanding or background in how to even begin to adhere to the basic logical and critical thinking skill principles which are used to draw out the truth in a “philosophical argument” within any debate. You’ve merely served here to demonstrate just how ignorant you are in the subject of logical debate through ending with such a silly conclusion - as if you’ve just made some sort of valid logical argument to support your fatalistic doctrines of determinism... that, and a reminder of what a waste of time it is to try to have a meaningful and productive debate here...

 

[Luke2427]

Have you ever studied the secular religions such as atheism?
Why are you putting up the same arguments an atheist would use?

My premise is not false; but yours is.
One can see that it is false even on the basis that you didn't even try to refute it.
Your arguments are flimsy and not from Scripture. Like I said, they are the same as the atheist's. Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift?
That is no argument at all. I have heard it all before, and I can take the time to refute the absurd. But I an not going to do that because I know you can do better than that.

You didn't answer the question.

So God can sin, die, cease to exist, etc...?

 

[DHK]

You didn't answer the question.

So God can sin, die, cease to exist, etc...?

Absurd and inane questions.
God cannot do those things that are against his nature or against his Word.
But we were not talking of those things were we?

 

[Luke2427]

It certainly is! Glad I stopped by to see this:




[Rhetorical Horse Laugh]:laugh: Luke, thanks for the laugh! :laugh: [/Rhetorical Horse Laugh] But seriously - Dude, you are far from figuring it out buddy; please stop trying to pretend to have any sort of formal education whatsoever in this area and do take a course in basic logic and critical thinking skills before you unwittingly embarrass yourself even further. Through observing your typical debate tactics here it is painfully obvious to us that know better that you have little to no understanding or background in how to even begin to adhere to the basic logical and critical thinking skill principles which are used to draw out the truth in a “philosophical argument” within any debate. You’ve merely served here to demonstrate just how ignorant you are in the subject of logical debate through ending with such a silly conclusion - as if you’ve just made some sort of valid logical argument to support your fatalistic doctrines of determinism... that, and a reminder of what a waste of time it is to try to have a meaningful and productive debate here...

Hey, Ben.

You did not post one WORD of argument here.

You did not make a case for anything.

You just hurled unfounded accusations.

Oh, and you laughed a lot and used a bunch of exclamation points.

Is that how you think a point is made?