Featured The greatest error on bb

Your post is way off base. Why should Luke move in his theological position? It sounds solid to me. Maybe you should consider doing the same.

Why do you bring the name of Calvin into every post? What does Calvin have to do with God and logic? You have been to seminary. Of all people, you should know that the mind of God is way beyond our understanding, limited to what He revealed to us in Scripture. Since you brought up the subject of Calvinism, why would you accuse Luke of myopic dualism? I do not believe this thread has anything to do with the Calvin-free will debate. It has to do with the attributes of God, specifically, logic.

Why are you encouraging Luke to read some books you think have merit when he has the Bible right in front of him?

God is sovereign, and man has free will limited by his sinful, fallen state. Your definition is incorrect, as is your entire post.

 

This entire thread is illogical to the hard determinist.

Now what? :laugh:

I am flattered my name was part of the OP. I have no problem believing God can and can't do something. If the Bible teaches it I accept it on faith, not logic. I'm glad you have it all figured out, Luke. Maybe the line starts behind you when crowns are passed out.

 

You might need to talk to Luke...when we say all he needs is the Bible he stoutly refuses and states men are needed. The more education, books and teacher, the more logical it all appears.

 

Well you got me there. I cannot even make the enemies list.

 

I agree with you Luke I have two threads on here which are bleeding with scriptural logic that 102 people have look at without one response.

I do not believe logic of any kind matters.

 

Maybe they were illogical...or in a deterministic universe its illogical to reply.

 

You forget, as do a lot of people, that at times Jesus Christ spoke in terms of His human nature as when He said: "I thirst"! There is only one God. What one person of the Trinity knows all know!

 

I agree I would just like for them to be shown scriptural illogical rather than illogical because no one let's say 1900 years ago did not post them. I know of no one who has ever seen the concepts of those post and do not really know why I have seen them, from scripture.

 

I love to cut and paste scripture, people cut and paste because they think some are blinded by few scripture because they do not see it with the light of all the other scripture's. Man can not live on little pieces of bread, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. They just are showing you what they believe that you are not considering.

Some things are not logical, we just have to take it by faith.

You should surely die, but nothing happened to Eve. We are still to believe God not our own understanding. What we see is temporary, what we don't is eternal.

Exodus 22:18

18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.

John 8:7
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matthew 26 :
51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Matthew 5 :
Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[Lev. 19:18] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

Most of the verses I know by memory. Whether I quote them or copy and paste them makes no difference to me. I quoted one of them on another thread and was criticized when I misquoted "for" instead of "unto" (or something like that) even though it made no difference in the meaning of the verse. If you would like me to quote the Scripture from now on I can do that. It's no problem for me.
BTW, what point does it validate? Copying and pasting validates a point?
You must be kidding?

This is the third post that I have emphasized:
God does not do anything against his nature or His Word.

That is a premise inherent in our discussion. Why are you beating a dead drum. Are we talking about Jehovah, Jesus Christ, or are we speaking of Ganesh, Buddha, or some other god? Where are you drawing your parameters? Either we are discussing the same God--the God of the Bible, and He is already defined for us (and thus your assumptions and questions are absurd and inane), or you have assumed that the god that you are presenting is pagan and undefined. Which is it?

 

UMMM.... I believe in logic....:wavey:

I am not a Calvinist.

But, I understand logic well enough to know at least 6 things:
1.) Calvinism is logical
2.) Classical Arminianism is logical
3.) Wesleyan Arminianism is logical
4.) Molinism is logical
5.) Amyraldianism is non-sense
6.) The following syllogism is logical

1. All Frogs are street-fighters
2. All street-fighters are devoted to non-violence
Therefore:
All frogs are devoted to non-violence

Logic has it's limits:
logic can only tell us if an argument is valid, it cannot tell us if it is sound.

If and only if an argument is both valid and sound is it's ultimate conclusion true.

The picture presented to us in the OP is mistaken at best, that only Calvinism is logical and only Calvinists shoulder the burden of logical consistency.

I assure you, there are many a Calvinist...and on this very board, who would use a non-sense term like "man-made logic".

Luke, you did say something very interesting though:
You said that Calvinism was "burdened" with logic.
I must say, that I agree. I don't believe that anyone for one second would have come to the Scriptures with ZERO pre-suppositions and concluded that they teach Limited Atonement. That doctrine, I believe above any other is sheerly and solely the result of a logical necessity. I believe that based upon mistaken assumptions logically prior within our TULIP Calvinism is forced nay "burdened" into swallowing the most ridiculous pill in the entire spectrum of soteriological systems.

Calvinism, in it's willingness to swallow said pill, maintains it's logical consistency (it's validity) at the expense of it's (soundness). But, because it must hold to false premises, it is ultimately false.

Calvinism's "burden" is both it's greatest strength and it's greatest weakness. It may be that (at least on a level simple enough for ANY intellectual rube to understand) the greatest appeal Calvinism has to many is it's logical consistency. More people, I believe, are won over to Calvinsm by what appears to be it's more rigid logic than pure exegesis alone, thus it gains adherents. Mind you, Calvinism ISN'T "more logical" than other systems (that isn't even possible) it just appears that way to many.

But it is also it's weakness in that logical necessity required it hold untenable and ultimately false premises due to the false assumption that LFW and Divine Sovereignty are incompatible and it's assumption that God cannot be ultimately "Sovereign" without exercising meticulous and direct control of all things.

But many systems are quite logical, but logic cannot be the sole arbitter of a truth claim. It can falsify one, but not prove it true.

 

Nevertheless, Jesus truly did thirst. Jesus truly did die on the cross. God in heaven has no needs, he does not thirst, or need to eat or sleep, he cannot die.

When Jesus said he did not know the exact day and hour he would return, I believe it.

 

Frankly I find many of your posts illogical as you refuse to go where they, those posts, logically lead. I'd not be too quick about casting logic stones at others.

 

I also nominate this post for "ironic post of the year". Luke, the reason I rarely debate you in anything is due to the very hypocricy you show here. Two, I had you on ignore for quite a while. I might have to revisit that option. You have been shown repeatedly on this thread you don't understand logic...even with the meticulous education you constantly flaunt. You might wantt to ask for a refund on your logic class.

 

he did not know that time, as he was "limited", as he was God in human flesh, but after His resurrection, ascended with His FULLNESS retored by the father, so now knows all things!

 

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, I said it way back in post #12;

For once you got something right. :thumbs:

 

Jesus Christ speaking from His human nature did not know but to say that His divine nature did not know is to deny the unity of the Godhead. The Apostle Paul tells us that in Jesus Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead:

Colossians 2:9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

So what God the Father knows, God the Word knows, and God the Holy Spirit knows!

THe human nature of Jesus Christ did thirst just as he got hungry, got dirty, sweated, all the things a man does. It was the human nature of Jesus Christ that sweated blood in Gethsemane. God does not have blood. It was the human nature of Jesus Christ that died on the cross, God cannot die!