Lack of education on logic the problem

[Winman]

Look, I just believe the Bible. Apparently you don't.

Do you get it yet winman?

This is how you argue.

The difference is that you believe hyperbole. You believe obvious exaggeration, such as a newborn child telling lies, being poisonous, having a mouthful of huge teeth, and melting like a snail.

I believe what is believable, Jesus said he did not know the exact day and hour he would return.

I believe God appeared as a man to Jacob, and in this form Jacob was able to prevail over him in a wrestling match. If God can appear as a man (and he can) then this is believable.

 

[Luke2427]

Yet another violation of the law of non-contradiction. I say if God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, then God is the author of sin. However Calvinism says God ordains whatsoever comes to pass but that does not make Him the author of sin.

In response, rather than address to specific issue, Luke2437 spews forth absurdity having nothing to do with the topic. Calvinism violates the law of non-contradiction and it is shocking how those who claim to adhere to logic embrace it. Truth has no meaning to the irrational mind.

Most Calvinists do not claim that God did not ordain sin.

 

[Luke2427]

The difference is that you believe hyperbole. You believe obvious exaggeration, such as a newborn child telling lies, being poisonous, having a mouthful of huge teeth, and melting like a snail.

I believe what is believable, Jesus said he did not know the exact day and hour he would return.

I believe God appeared as a man to Jacob, and in this form Jacob was able to prevail over him in a wrestling match. If God can appear as a man (and he can) then this is believable.

No. God said it. I believe it. You are arguing with God.

 

[webdog]

Look, I just believe the Bible. Apparently you don't.

Do you get it yet winman?

This is how you argue.

Winman did an excellent job in showing the true meaning of those 2 OS proof texts.

 

[Luke2427]

Winman did an excellent job in showing the true meaning of those 2 OS proof texts.

No he didn't. No educated person would think he did either.

 

[webdog]

No he didn't. No educated person would think he did either.

If your education teaches figurative language and hyperbole should be taken literally, you should demand a refund.

 

[quantumfaith]

Sometimes we suffer from being too edumacated.

 

[Luke2427]

If your education teaches figurative language and hyperbole should be taken literally, you should demand a refund.

That's exactly my point. That's exactly what Winman does most of the time.

 

[quantumfaith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ6agCPNee0

 

[DHK]

You probably did not even know about David's mother having children with a non-Jew. :thumbs:

This is a moot point. It is certainly not what David was referring to in Psalm 51, David's psalm of repentance.
But it is moot because David's own lineage is from ancestors who were non-Jewish: Rahab, Ruth. But he is not speaking of lineage. He is not speaking of his mother's heritage. He is speaking of himself.

 

[DHK]

Now, that said, when God appeared as Jesus Christ, Jesus suggested it was at least possible in theory that he could lie.

John 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

That "if" in John 8:55 is very important, as it introduces "possibility". It argues that at least in theory Jesus had the ability to tell a lie. I believe what Jesus said. There would be no need to tempt Jesus if he could not possibly fail, what kind of test is that?

Winman: If I lived in CT (like you), I would go fishing in the Atlantic.
(Where I live it reached minus 50 Fahrenheit last night). [windchill]
But that is conditional on the IF.
The IF does not introduce a possibility.
I am not going to be in CT, and I don't believe it is God's will for me to be there. It doesn't introduce a possibility. Just because there is an "if" there doesn't mean there is a possibility.

I already demonstrated this to you in 1Cor.13:1-4.
"...Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
Paul is not admitting the possibility of having either all faith or of moving mountains. But that is what you are suggesting.

 

[Winman]

This is a moot point. It is certainly not what David was referring to in Psalm 51, David's psalm of repentance.
But it is moot because David's own lineage is from ancestors who were non-Jewish: Rahab, Ruth. But he is not speaking of lineage. He is not speaking of his mother's heritage. He is speaking of himself.

You can ignore whatever you want, but it is clear from scripture that David was not well treated by his father and older brothers. They were tall and dark, David was short and ruddy. When Samuel came to Jesse, twice Jesse presented all of his sons except David. It was only when Samuel insisted that David was presented.

So, it is very likely David had a poor self image of himself, and this is what he was expressing in Psalm 51:5.

What is error is to pull a verse out of context and apply it to the doctrine of Original Sin when that is not the topic of Psalm 51 whatsoever.

 

[Winman]

Winman: If I lived in CT (like you), I would go fishing in the Atlantic.
(Where I live it reached minus 50 Fahrenheit last night). [windchill]
But that is conditional on the IF.
The IF does not introduce a possibility.
I am not going to be in CT, and I don't believe it is God's will for me to be there. It doesn't introduce a possibility. Just because there is an "if" there doesn't mean there is a possibility.

I already demonstrated this to you in 1Cor.13:1-4.
"...Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
Paul is not admitting the possibility of having either all faith or of moving mountains. But that is what you are suggesting.

Again, you are ignoring the context of Jesus's statements. In context he was answering direct questions where people asked him what they must do to inherit eternal life. In both instances he told them if they would enter life to keep the commandments.

Jesus was not using hypotheticals to give a lesson when he made these statements.

 

[DHK]

Again, you are ignoring the context of Jesus's statements. In context he was answering direct questions where people asked him what they must do to inherit eternal life. In both instances he told them if they would enter life to keep the commandments.

Jesus was not using hypotheticals to give a lesson when he made these statements.

What do you think the word "IF" introduces?
It introduces a condition, a hypothetical, a conjecture, etc.
In this case you could call it a condition, a condition that could not be met.

If I could sprout wings and fly to CT, I could meet you for coffee.
Whether I call it a condition or a hypothetical it makes no difference here.
I can no more sprout wings than I can keep the law.
Both are impossible.

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, you are ignoring the context of Jesus's statements. In context he was answering direct questions where people asked him what they must do to inherit eternal life. In both instances he told them if they would enter life to keep the commandments.

Jesus was not using hypotheticals to give a lesson when he made these statements.

2 things here!

Conditional statement, with expected answer being "since none can keep the commandments"

Also, Jesus was showing us just how really absurd it is to come to God that way, for in the Sermon on the Mount, jesus showed how God views keeping the law, and NO sinner can do it that way and be saved!

 

[Van]

Most Calvinists do not claim that God did not ordain sin.

Yes, and that claim by most Calvinists violates the law of non-contradiction, making Calvinism irrational nonsense.

Here is your statement - Most Calvinists, no source cited, claim God ordained sin. However, if we look at the WCF we see that God ordaining sin does not make His the author of sin. This, not to put too fine a point on it, is irrational nonsense.

The statement that does not violate the law of non-contradiction is God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. This is the logical view. However, it is not the view of Calvinism as presented in the WCF.

 

[DHK]

Again, you are ignoring the context of Jesus's statements. In context he was answering direct questions where people asked him what they must do to inherit eternal life. In both instances he told them if they would enter life to keep the commandments.

Jesus was not using hypotheticals to give a lesson when he made these statements.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Here Jesus is speaking to an unsaved man. Unlike his approach to the woman at the well, this is the advice he gives to this man.
If you are evangelizing is this how you would point a person to Christ? Is this the gospel that you would present so that they could be savd?

 

[Luke2427]

Yes, and that claim by most Calvinists violates the law of non-contradiction, making Calvinism irrational nonsense.

Here is your statement - Most Calvinists, no source cited, claim God ordained sin. However, if we look at the WCF we see that God ordaining sin does not make His the author of sin. This, not to put too fine a point on it, is irrational nonsense.

You are wrong and here is why: I can ordain that a book be written without writing it myself.

So there dies your whole argument.

 

[Van]

Nonsense

You are wrong and here is why: I can ordain that a book be written without writing it myself.

So there dies your whole argument.

But if a person is ordained to sin, then the one ordaining, predestining, causing is the author of that sin. God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, that is the logical and biblical view. Calvinism is simply nonsense, the product of minds forged in the dark ages that thought God compels rather than persuades, when it comes to embracing God and trusting in Christ.