The greatest error on bb

[Luke2427]

I agree, which is why faith in His existence (and revelation) is necessary for true logic.

Yea, but we come to the acknowledgement of logic before we come to true faith.

We have to THINK before we can believe. Thinking requires logic. Then logic leads us to beleive that there is a God and then we realize that the only sensible explanation for why there is logic is because of God. The existence of logic cannot be justified in a godless existence.

We don't believe and THEN discover logic.

We discover logic, then believe, then realize that what we believe is the only reason there IS LOGIC.

 

[Skandelon]

Why must we?

Because its a reality. Some don't have faith and according to your system its because God determined not to give them any, so I'm not sure why you would question this???

Some reject the existence of God or deny certain abilities or actions of God based on what they believe about his revelation. Those truths affect the framework of your logic. If you believe God cannot create agents, who, like Himself, have the ability to make choices undetermined by anyone outside Himself that is a framework informed by the truths you accept from His revelation, but may not be the same framework I'm working from because I interpret the revelation differently. Both can be "logical" (as you had HOS seemed to concede), but that is only because you each have different frameworks of accepted truth (truth accepted on the basis of interpretation of revelation and faith in the reliability of that revelation)

 

[Luke2427]

Since God is revealing His invisible qualities through what He has made. I said one thing that is revealed through what He has made.

Right. Logic precedes faith. We think and then we believe. What do we think? We think about what is made and conclude there must be a Maker.

We have something to open up to people about the Gospel. The Gospel is not the same God is revealing it through witness and messengers of the witness to the ends of the earth. The message is by faith in what they have not seen that you want to change what is by faith into logic. The have not seen all Jesus has done and heard all He has said they have to take it by faith not by logic.

When they do hear and see it, if they are made willing, they then apply logic to what he has said and then they believe.

Either way logic is used to BRING them to faith.

 

[Luke2427]

Because its a reality. Some don't have faith and according to your system its because God determined not to give them any, so I'm not sure why you would question this???

Some reject the existence of God or deny certain abilities or actions of God based on what they believe about his revelation. Those truths affect the framework of your logic. If you believe God cannot create agents, who, like Himself, have the ability to make choices undetermined by anyone outside Himself that is a framework informed by the truths you accept from His revelation, but may not be the same framework I'm working from because I interpret the revelation differently. Both can be "logical" (as you had HOS seemed to concede), but that is only because you each have different frameworks of accepted truth (truth accepted on the basis of interpretation of revelation and faith in the reliability of that revelation)

But we are not talking to atheists or Buddhists in this thread.

We are talking to Christians. And we are saying that Christians have to submit their theology to the immutable, eternal laws of logic.

In other words you don't get to say something about God that clearly violates the law of noncontradiction.

That's what this thread is about.

If I were debating an atheist I would back up a step and start with God as a necessary being.

But logic in a debate with an atheist would be as invicible as logic in a debate with you.

This stuff you were saying earlier about "MY LOGIC" is bull. Now you can contend that what I am arguing is not logical. But you can't say that logic does not have to apply. It does.

Logic is logic. The Buddhist, Atheist, Arminan and Calvinist must ALL yield their arguments and claims to the law of noncontradiction in order to have an even REMOTELY meaningful conversation.

 

[psalms109:31]

Right. Logic precedes faith. We think and then we believe. What do we think? We think about what is made and conclude there must be a Maker.



When they do hear and see it, if they are made willing, they then apply logic to what he has said and then they believe.

Either way logic is used to BRING them to faith.

God tells us not to think do not lean on your own understanding listen and learn from Him and He will lead us to the truth of what to believe. We are to believe in Him not our own understanding. You believe in Him then He gives you truth.

The only one will come is those who not just listen but those who listen and learn from Him. They are made willing.

 

[Luke2427]

God tells us not to think do not lean on your own understanding

He is making an appeal for us to utilize logic in this very verse.

He is saying, "Does it not make better sense to trust in One who is self-existent, eternal, all-knowing, everywhere present, good, just, all-powerful, merciful and loving than to lean to your own limited, corrupted, perspective."

This verse is an APPEAL to be logical.

And consider this. If the law of noncontradiction does not preempt this command then God is NOT to be trusted because he may indeed contradict himself.

The reason you SHOULD trust him is BECAUSE he does NOT contradict himself- in other words it is because he is logical.

It is your belief in the necessity of logic that justifies you believing that you CAN trust him.

 

[psalms109:31]

He is making an appeal for us to utilize logic in this very verse.

He is saying, "Does it not make better sense to trust in One who is self-existent, eternal, all-knowing, everywhere present, good, just, all-powerful, merciful and loving than to lean to your own limited, corrupted, perspective."

This verse is an APPEAL to be logical.

And consider this. If the law of noncontradiction does not preempt this command then God is NOT to be trusted because he may indeed contradict himself.

The reason you SHOULD trust him is BECAUSE he does NOT contradict himself- in other words it is because he is logical.

It is your belief in the necessity of logic that justifies you believing that you CAN trust him.

It is an appeal to have faith even when we things don't make sense. Our understanding logic will never understand God so we are to trust in Him even in these times. We cannot trust this flesh that is always in war with God and His word. Who can save me from this body of death praise be to Jesus

 

[Winman]

Yes to all five questions.

There is nothing about those examples that undermine the laws of logic.

This, I think, is your fundamental flaw.

It goes like this: I don't like the implications that God has ordained all things so I will come up with a way, or find a way that someone else has come up with, to deny it. Since there is no way to deny it without being illogical, I will toss out logic as it pertains to God. I will excuse my doing this by referencing miracles and supernatural works and saying -THERE! God does not have to be logical because he does illogical things all of the time!

But the problem evident in this reasoning is that you do not know what logic is.

Oh, yes, you know what a syllogism is. But you don't understand LOGIC. Because this is true you can fashion a theology that is not logical and when we call you on it you simply say- "IS THE TRINITY LOGICAL!!??"

The answer is- ABSOLUTELY.

That's your problem. Credible theology MUST bend to logic. Why? Because LOGIC IS AS MUCH OF GOD AS LOVE AND HOLINESS ARE.

So when your theology has God knowing all things and NOT knowing a whole bunch of things at the same time- IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE TRUE.

When your theology has God as One who has always known and will always know all there is to ever know about everything and still at the same time has him pondering things, forgetting things, making choices as if he did not always know what he would "choose"- your theology cannot be true because it is ILLOGICAL.

Is it illogical that Jesus Christ required sleep? Is it illogical that Jesus Christ had to eat? Is it illogical that Jesus Christ died?

Jesus is God isn't he Luke? Then how could God die?

This is why I asked you why it is illogical for me to believe God's very words in Gen 18:21?

You believe God is omnipotent, and so it would be illogical for him not to be omnipotent. But was Jesus omnipotent when he died on the cross?

If God could limit himself when he became man in the person of Jesus Christ, why could God not have limited himself in Genesis 18?

Wilson said it better than I could hope to say it:
Second, if you don't embrace [logic as an attribute of God], you lose all the Bible words. If God is not necessarily internally-consistent (which is what I am intending by all of this), then He could be holy and unholy as well. He could love the elect eternally and not love the elect eternally at all. Since He is so sovereign over logic, He could even exist and not exist at the same time. And if someone objects to your striking combination of theism and atheism, just tell them that you follow Jesus and not Aristotle. Which, if true, would allow you to follow Aristotle at the same time you are repudiating him.

Well, God can be omnipotent, and at the same time lose a wrestling match to Jacob. You may call that illogical, but I simply believe the word of God.

 

[Luke2427]

It is an appeal to have faith even when we things don't make sense.

Faith in what?

Faith in a God who does not contradict himself and is thus trustworthy.

It is logical faith.

The logic precedes the faith.

Our understanding logic will never understand God

Can never understand God? What do you mean by that? That we can never understand ANYTHING about God?

That's not true.

Do you mean that we can never fully understand everything about God?

So what, then? We don't have to understand EVERYTHING about God in order to trust him.

But the one thing we DO have to understand is that he is TRUSTWORHTY. We come to that understanding through logic.

so we are to trust in Him even in these times. We cannot trust this flesh

No one is purporting that you trust in flesh. I am purporting that you trust in God BASED ON LOGIC.

Logic is not of the flesh- it is of God.

 

[Luke2427]

Is it illogical that Jesus Christ required sleep? Is it illogical that Jesus Christ had to eat? Is it illogical that Jesus Christ died?

Jesus is God isn't he Luke? Then how could God die?

The human nature experienced all of these things. The divine nature which he always had did not experience these things.

That is not illogical at all.

This is why I asked you why it is illogical for me to believe God's very words in Gen 18:21?

You believe God is omnipotent, and so it would be illogical for him not to be omnipotent. But was Jesus omnipotent when he died on the cross?

Yes, Jesus in his divine nature was omnipotent when Jesus died on the cross. His human nature suffered and died; not his divine nature.

If God could limit himself

He did not limit himself. He took on a new nature that was limited. He himself was not limited at all.

Well, God can be omnipotent, and at the same time lose a wrestling match to Jacob.

No, he cannot. For one thing, the text never says he lost that match. For another, the text never said that a successful pin was the purpose of the match. For yet another, that was, once again, God taking on a different nature which was not eternal, which was not omnipotent, etc...

 

[psalms109:31]

Faith is to believe in something we have not seen it doesn't take logic but faith. We was not there to see Jesus walk on water or to hear His word or to watch Him live His life.

 

[Winman]

The human nature experienced all of these things. The divine nature which he always had did not experience these things.

That is not illogical at all.

Then why is it illogical for God to appear as a man in Genesis 18 and say he would go down to Sodom to see if they had done according to the cry he heard and if not he would know?

Does God need to eat? And yet God ate food when Abraham served it to him.

Gen 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

What is illogical is how you pick and choose which scriptures you believe. You believe Jesus became a man and needed to eat. But you refuse to believe that God became a man in Genesis 18 and needed to eat. You are inconsistent.

Yes, Jesus in his divine nature was omnipotent when Jesus died on the cross. His human nature suffered and died; not his divine nature.

What do you mean nature? Explain that. Jesus died on the cross, at that moment he was not omnipotent.

He did not limit himself. He took on a new nature that was limited. He himself was not limited at all.

You play with words. Jesus became a man and needed to eat and sleep and all other functions a man needs and does. Of course he limited himself.

You will simply not admit when you are wrong. God clearly limited himself when he became a man in the person of Jesus Christ, so it is not illogical at all to believe God could limit himself and become a man in the OT.

It is you that is illogical.

No, he cannot. For one thing, the text never says he lost that match. For another, the text never said that a successful pin was the purpose of the match. For yet another, that was, once again, God taking on a different nature which was not eternal, which was not omnipotent, etc...

Now you are plain denying scripture. The scripture says that Jacob prevailed.

Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Notice that God told Jacob he prevailed in verse 28?

I don't know why anybody wastes time debating with you, you will wiggle and twist, but you will never admit when you are wrong, which is nearly all the time. Very childish.

 

[Luke2427]

Faith is to believe in something we have not see it doesn't take logic but faith. We was not there to see Jesus walk on water or to hear is word or to watch Him live His life.

You just said faith takes faith. That doesn't make any sense. It is a meaningless statement.

Faith in what, is the question you have to answer.

WHAT are we to believe in?

And then answer this- WHY? Why should we believe in it?

Blind faith is not saving faith. Saving faith is conviction- to be convinced. It is to be PERSUADED. It is not just to say I believe because I want to. That is not saving faith and that seems to be what you are advocating.

 

[Luke2427]

Then why is it illogical for God to appear as a man in Genesis 18 and say he would go down to Sodom to see if they had done according to the cry he heard and if not he would know?

It is not illogical for God to do that. That's what I am saying. God NEVER defies logic.

Does God need to eat? And yet God ate food when Abraham served it to him.

The nature God took on ate. There is nothing illogical about that.

What is illogical is how you pick and choose which scriptures you believe. You believe Jesus became a man and needed to eat. But you refuse to believe that God became a man in Genesis 18 and needed to eat. You are inconsistent.

You are so terribly uneducated. It is amazing.

I knew better than this when I was 14 years old.

What do you mean nature? Explain that. Jesus died on the cross, at that moment he was not omnipotent.

The divine nature did not perish on the cross, Winman. The human nature died on the cross.

You play with words.

No. It is that you don't understand words.

Jesus became a man and needed to eat and sleep and all other functions a man needs and does. Of course he limited himself.

No he did not. Christians, including baptists and non-cals for ages have called what you are espousing heresy. It is called theopassianism. If you would pick up a book and read it it would do you a world of good.

You will simply not admit when you are wrong.

Yea, that's it Winman. Me and most Christians throughout the past two thousand years are all wrong- including most Independent Baptists- you are the only one that is right.

Carry that kind of arrogance to your grave at your own peril Winman.

 

[psalms109:31]

You just said faith takes faith. That doesn't make any sense. It is a meaningless statement.

Faith in what, is the question you have to answer.

WHAT are we to believe in?

And then answer this- WHY? Why should we believe in it?

Blind faith is not saving faith. Saving faith is conviction- to be convinced. It is to be PERSUADED. It is not just to say I believe because I want to. That is not saving faith and that seems to be what you are advocating.

It takes faith to come to the logic you don't already have the truth He has it.There is nothing wrong coming to Jesus by faith to open your eyes.

 

[Winman]

It is not illogical for God to do that. That's what I am saying. God NEVER defies logic.

You said it was illogical to believe God was not omniscient in Gen 18:21, but Jesus told us plainly he did not know the exact day and hour he would return, but only his Father.

So if Jesus was not omniscient, why is it illogical to believe God became a man in Genesis 18 that was not omniscient?

You are inconsistent and illogical.

The nature God took on ate. There is nothing illogical about that.

What do you mean by nature? This is twice I have asked you. How does a nature eat?

You are so terribly uneducated. It is amazing.

I knew better than this when I was 14 years old.

Trust me Luke, you are not that bright. It is OBVIOUS. If God could become a man in the NT, God could become a man in the OT. You did not answer, because you know you are wrong.

The divine nature did not perish on the cross, Winman. The human nature died on the cross.

Death means separation, Jesus's soul and spirit was separated from his body. That is death.

No. It is that you don't understand words.

Right, I don't understand words. Good argument. :laugh:

No he did not. Christians, including baptists and non-cals for ages have called what you are espousing heresy. It is called theopassianism. If you would pick up a book and read it it would do you a world of good.

False charge, common tactic for you. Jesus limited or "emptied" himself, all scholars agree to this.

Yea, that's it Winman. Me and most Christians throughout the past two thousand years are all wrong- including most Independent Baptists- you are the only one that is right.

Carry that kind of arrogance to your grave at your own peril Winman.

First, most Christians do not agree with you on many things. Second, if they did, Christianity would be in BIG TROUBLE.

 

[Benjamin]

Man is responsible for whatever God says he is responsible for.

I think that perhaps your are under the impression that choice REQUIRES contracausal free will.

But the fact is that a choice is nothing more than picking one of two or more options.

WHENEVER you do this you have a REASON for picking what you picked.

Originally posted by Benjamin:
Question: Will you reject the following premises?

Let me know when and if you’re feeling trapped now and we’ll see if we can fix the problem!

Given:
Man is responsible for the choices which he makes = A
Man is responsible for the choices which God makes = B

A + A =
A + B =
B + A =
B + B =

I’ll take your answer (dance) as, “Yes, you reject the premise”, big surprise there!!!

It didn’t take long for you to go full circle did it??? You speak of “reason” but you are right on track with your typical MO of simply avoiding “*logical reason” (*see below) to avoid a conclusion in your replies. In effect, we are right back to defining how “how” “God is Sovereign”.

You will desperately settle for nothing less regarding responsibility than T + F = T, which is logically false buddy! All you will EVER be able to offer is an invalid argument regarding this issue. I doubt you even understand the meaning or consequences of such reasoning, but I do, and it directly points to either your critical thinking skills or your values regarding the “truth” as being serious messed up…you logically remove truth from the nature of God all for the motive of holding to a screwed up made-man deterministic doctrine!

Originally posted by Benjamin:
Is God “Deterministically Sovereign” over His creatures:

Necessarily, All of God’s ways are judgment in truth.
God holds man responsible for the actions He controls.
Therefore, God’s judgment involves holding man responsible for God’s controlled actions in truth.

Is God “Providently Sovereign” over His creatures:

Necessarily, all of God’s ways are judgment in truth.
God holds man responsible for his own volitional actions.
Therefore, God’s judgment involves holding man responsible for his own volitional actions in truth.

Luke, in order to logically draw out the truth in the meaning of God being Sovereign, - Can we define God’s Sovereignty as Deterministic or Providential? Or will you (try to) hold that both true?

Luke, you’re constantly merely attempting to evade the argument using various fallacious means involving weaseling to suggest there are “unstated premises”; what you are doing is fallaciously rejecting “all” premises by refusing to categorize claims so that a conclusion cannot be presented as true based on the premises. In doing so you avoid truth.

I’m simply asking for you to establish sound premises for a philosophically logical argument to begin…to allow for categorical claims. A categorical claim says something about classes “or categories” of things. Any true claim (not an evasive claim) must result in putting description or classes upon the subject and predicate in a premise in the form of terms.

Again, it is fallacy in its purist form to evade, by whatever means, categorizing claims and establishing terms and it is absolutely ridiculously ignorant to suggest one is “logically arguing” without EVER doing so! - Yet, it is very apparent to me this is your favorite MO in what you think is “debate” or “philosophical argument” – BTW, that is why I have tried (several times) to explain what an “argument” is and what it isn’t “PHILOSOPHICALLY” speaking!

On a side not maybe this (from the beginning of the first chapter from a college textbook in Basic Logic and Critical Thinking Skills) will help explain to you what a philosophical argument is: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0073386677/610543/Moore9e_ch01.pdf

Your answer, once again, is to reject the premises and begins with:

Man is responsible for whatever God says he is responsible for.

For CRYING OUR LOUD that is not an “argument” philosophically speaking and it is a very ignorant and immature way to debate!!!

Above, I simply asked for you answer T or F or if you would reject the "simplistic" premise.

My previous argument before that cuts to the chase of defining “whatever responsibility (cause)” and God’s judgment in Truth, but you are now evading establishing terms regarding the origin of the “cause”.

Does God judge “whatever” (evil) that He causes or does God judge “whatever” (evil) man causes? The “evil” God judges in truth must have an origin regarding God justly holding His creature accountable for his responsibility for causing that evil!!!

A premise involves a claim which must have two parts; a subject term and a predicate term. Take a “standard form categorical claim”, for example: (A) All ________ are _________, (B) No __________ are __________. Phrases that go into the blanks are called terms.

You attempt to endlessly reject any term rather than establish premises and seem to think that is some kind of valid way of argument or some kind of logic.

You can’t go about to avoid establishing terms and even begin a philosophical argument; “arguing” without doing so is like what children do, it is fussing and fight and often thought of as an “argument”, but that IS NOT THE KIND OF “ARGUMENT” I AM “TRYING” TO GET AT! I am trying to address using “logic” scientifically or IOW’s “philosophically” (*Logic: The branch of philosophy concerned with whether the reasons presented for a claim, if these reasons were true, would justify accepting the claim). When say, let’s be “logical”, I am referring to the “GOALS” of using the tools of philosophy which are formulated to draw out the “TRUTH” in an “argument”. Philosophy also deals with rhetoric and fallacies but using these methods to “argue” with are not the ETHICAL GOALS of debate!

Refusing to define terms is the kind of “philosophical goals” Bill Clinton would use to “avoid the TRUTH”. Bill Clinton does not use philosophy ETHICALLY! When debating, Christians should be concerning themselves with the goals of drawing out the TRUTH not in how to avoid it. I seriously hope it is that you simply do not recognize the value of applying the “proper ethics” in debate because I do not want to believe that you are just merely discarding these values!

That said, let’s try again:

Originally posted by Luke:
Man is responsible for whatever God says he is responsible for.

God’s judgment involves holding man responsible for… A or B?

A: Man’s choices to do evil
B: God’s choices to do evil

As believers can we agree on this claim which must be necessarily true: All of God’s Judgments are involving holding man responsible for “his” actions in “TRUTH”.

???

All causes are judged by God in Truth.
All God’s judgments are Just.
Therefore, all causes are Justly judged by God in Truth.

Luke, I challenge you to give me a categorized syllogism (a valid logical argument) which demonstrates God can Justly judge his creatures in Truth for the evil in which “they” do while maintaining that God has pre-determinately fixed the causes’ unchangeable origin and thereby the creatures choice.

 

[Luke2427]

You said it was illogical to believe God was not omniscient in Gen 18:21, but Jesus told us plainly he did not know the exact day and hour he would return, but only his Father.

So if Jesus was not omniscient, why is it illogical to believe God became a man in Genesis 18 that was not omniscient?

You are inconsistent and illogical.



What do you mean by nature? This is twice I have asked you. How does a nature eat?



Trust me Luke, you are not that bright. It is OBVIOUS. If God could become a man in the NT, God could become a man in the OT. You did not answer, because you know you are wrong.



Death means separation, Jesus's soul and spirit was separated from his body. That is death.

Right, I don't understand words. Good argument. :laugh:



False charge, common tactic for you. Jesus limited or "emptied" himself, all scholars agree to this.



First, most Christians do not agree with you on many things. Second, if they did, Christianity would be in BIG TROUBLE.

Let me cut through all this red tape.

Do you believe that God himself always and forever abides by the law of non-contradiction?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus NEVER was a man until the Incarnation, he would temp come in the form liek a man/Angel of the Lord, but was NOT fully Man until at His birth!

And Jesus was fully God/man while on earth, so limited His awareness of the date of His coming during that time, but has the fullness of His former glory now and again "knows all things!"

 

[Winman]

Let me cut through all this red tape.

Do you believe that God himself always and forever abides by the law of non-contradiction?

I do not believe God ever contradicts himself, when properly understood. I would give an example.

Exo 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Verse 11 says God and Moses spoke face to face as friends speak. Verse 20 appears to be a direct contradiction of verse 11, God says Moses cannot see his face and live.

How can both verses be true and no contradiction? I believe that when God appeared to men in the OT that he limited some of his attributes. In verse 11 God appeared as a man and Moses could look directly on his face and live. In verse 20 God is speaking of appearing in his "glory". In this form no man can look on God and live.

This seems to be what you cannot understand, God is able to limit himself. He does not appear in his glory. In this form he is not self-sufficient and needs to eat and sleep. He is not everywhere at once, and obviously he is not omniscient in this state.

Now, I believe while God appeared in this limited form on earth, that at the same moment he was in heaven and all powerful, all knowing, etc...

But your statement that it is illogical that God can both know all things and not know all things is shown false by scripture. As has been explained by HoS, it is logical because it is supernatural.

Jesus is God, and Jesus said he did not know the exact day and hour he would return. This is not the only time he was not omniscient. He did not know who touched him when the woman with an issue of blood touched him.

Luk 8:43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
44 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
45 And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
46 And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
47 And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
48 And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

As you see, Jesus did not know who touched him when the woman with an issue of blood touched him, that is, unless you believe Jesus to be a liar.

Believe the scriptures Luke.