The greatest error on bb

[OldRegular]

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



For once you got something right. :thumbs:

You got it wrong in post #12 and yeshua got it wrong here. The only thing that God laid aside in the incarnation was His Glory. Recall that in John 17 Jesus Christ said:

John 17:1-12
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

I call your attention to verse 5. Jesus Christ did not ask for His omniscience or omnipotence or any other divine attributes to be restored because He still had them in His Incarnation.

There is also much else in the prayer of Jesus Christ that is instructive and edifying for those who wish to learn.

 

[quantumfaith]

So enlighten us, why did Jesus make the claim that neither he nor anyone BUT the Father knew the time?

 

[Luke2427]

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.

Excellent contribution, Heir.

I don't agree with every single thing you say here as you well know but it is well said and manifestly thoughtful.


I do think that Classical Arminianism is more logical than this formless, unsystematizeable blob of inconsistent doctrines often referred to as "non-cal".

I also think it is more logical than Openness Theology which some espouse on here.

I think Classical Arminianism is honorable. It tries to handle the Scripture honestly, does not toss logic completely out the window and it is orthodox.

I do think it embraces something illogical- that God can be in total control of all things while not being in control of many things at the same time.

 

[Luke2427]

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?

I was not bragging and I was not purporting that you should only quote them from memory.

That had nothing to do with my point.

My point is that you think you have made a point by simply pasting a bunch of verses without expounding upon them.

This is not a conversation between two new converts here, DHK.

This is a conversation between people who have been rigorously studying the Scripture for decades.

We ought to be beyond proof texting.

It is required of people who discuss these things on this level to paste a verse and then do the exegesis and make claims with support arguing logically and theo-logically.

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

You said God CANNOT do these things.

And you are right.

God CANNOT cease to exist. He could not if he wanted to.

You are smart enough to know that omnipotence does not mean that you can do anything.


Yet you argue that my logic is flawed because I imply in it that God cannot do certain things.

 

[percho]

You got it wrong in post #12 and yeshua got it wrong here. The only thing that God laid aside in the incarnation was His Glory. Recall that in John 17 Jesus Christ said:

John 17:1-12
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

I call your attention to verse 5. Jesus Christ did not ask for His omniscience or omnipotence or any other divine attributes to be restored because He still had them in His Incarnation.

There is also much else in the prayer of Jesus Christ that is instructive and edifying for those who wish to learn.

And I believe that glory to be eternal life in incorruptible flesh. Compare 1 Peter 1:21-24 with also John 5:21,26.

I don't think I am allowed to copy and paste. Just kidding.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

Another claim without warrant.

Give support for your claims or they are noting but inflammatory remarks.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

I do not flaunt an education and I am not talking about you debating me- I am saying that you rarely debate period. You just post insults. You don't square off and present ideas of your own to be scrutinized. You just drive by and say, "Uh U-UH!! You are a poo-poo head! You are a poo-poo head!!"

Secondly, it has NOT been demonstrated by anyone that I do not understand logic.

Thirdly, your post proves my point. You still have not made an actual argument. You just say snarky things about me.

I think that that is the limit of your ability to converse with people.

Fourthly, I could not care less if you put me back on ignore. Please feel free. Your little insulting remarks in your drive by posts are not helpful at all. You are not interested in real debate. Your ignoring me would be a blessing.

 

[Winman]

So enlighten us, why did Jesus make the claim that neither he nor anyone BUT the Father knew the time?

You gotta laugh sometimes. If you believe what the scriptures say you are a heretic. If you completely deny what scripture says you are correct. :laugh:

As I have said a hundred times, Calvinism/Reformed theology gets it backwards. They will tell you the scriptures mean the exact opposite of what they plainly say. Jesus said he did not know the exact day and hour he would return, they tell you he did.

 

[Skandelon]

What is Logic?

Luke, your OP seems shortsighted and not fully vetted because you fail to even address a definition of what you are talking about when you refer to 'logic.' You seem to think there is only one method or form of logic in view, which of course is simply a big game of question begging (ironically a logical debate fallacy).

Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. (you can do a search to find other such expressions)

You may stumble across something like...

"Have you ever wondered how a computer can do something like balance a check book, or play chess, or spell-check a document? These are things that, just a few decades ago, only humans could do. Now computers do them with apparent ease. How can a "chip" made up of silicon and wires do something that seems like it requires human thought?"

If you want to understand the answer to this question down at the very core, the first thing you need to understand is something called Boolean logic. Boolean logic, originally developed by George Boole in the mid 1800s, allows quite a few unexpected things to be mapped into bits and bytes. The great thing about Boolean logic is that, once you get the hang of things, Boolean logic (or at least the parts you need in order to understand the operations of computers) is outrageously simple."

Simple, and very similar to what determinists appear to think mankind is reduced to...machines built to respond in preprogrammed ways given preprogrammed stimuli.

You of all people should understand that protestant Christians have largely abandoned the idea that reason/logic is a sufficient guide to faith, especially given your view that faith is a gift from God, and not something that a person can arrive at through their own powers of reason/logic. Another reason this post seems shortsighted and not fully vetted...

 

[DHK]

You said God CANNOT do these things.

And you are right.

God CANNOT cease to exist. He could not if he wanted to.

You are smart enough to know that omnipotence does not mean that you can do anything.


Yet you argue that my logic is flawed because I imply in it that God cannot do certain things.

This is the fourth time I have said this.

Though God is omnipotent, he cannot do those things which are against his nature or against his Word.

Though we are debating about his omnipotence, we are still debating within the parameters of the Word of God, and not another god. When you present the inane ideas that god can sin, god can lie, god can do all kinds of goofy things that are against his nature you are presenting another god that is against the God of the Bible.

It is assumed that we are discussing the same God. Within the parameters of the Word of God we already know those things and I shouldn't have had to post those Scriptures at all, all of which were self-explanatory.

 

[Luke2427]

You gotta laugh sometimes. If you believe what the scriptures say you are a heretic. If you completely deny what scripture says you are correct. :laugh:

Every once in a while I read something you write like this and I feel differently than I usually feel about you.

I usually think of you as an extremely dangerous person because of your, what seems to some to be, almost sociopathic beliefs.

The belief that God speaks to you and you need NNE to help you better comprehend Scripture and nearly 2,000 years of Christians working out complex truths together is utterly meaningless to you and the belief that without any theological education at all you are way ahead of most seminarians concerning biblical literacy, etc...

Those lead me to, I must confess, indignation. I think it is righteous indignation, but I digress.

But I feel differently right now.

I read this, and I pity you. I think it is genuine, heartfelt, sincere pity.

You really think this. You really think that you know the Bible- that the only time there is any need at all to dig under the surface of a passage is when the surface teaches Calvinism. But when the surface of it suits you, then YOU JUST BELIEVE THE BIBLE BY JOHN!

And when others try to tell you that what you think it says on the surface is wrong because it must be understood in it's historical grammatical context, in the immediate context, the book context and the context of the whole of Scripture- you REALLY DO BELIEVE that they deny the Bible.

It is so sad. And I know you think I am just trying to insult you. And I promise you I am not. I am not above it. I am not saying I have never done it. But really and truly I honestly, at least for this moment, wish I could help you- or that ANYONE could help you.

It is so sad.

 

[Winman]

Excellent contribution, Heir.

I don't agree with every single thing you say here as you well know but it is well said and manifestly thoughtful.


I do think that Classical Arminianism is more logical than this formless, unsystematizeable blob of inconsistent doctrines often referred to as "non-cal".

I also think it is more logical than Openness Theology which some espouse on here.

I think Classical Arminianism is honorable. It tries to handle the Scripture honestly, does not toss logic completely out the window and it is orthodox.

I do think it embraces something illogical- that God can be in total control of all things while not being in control of many things at the same time.

Luke, I will address your last statement. Skan has said something similar. It is one of the better analogies.

Imagine playing the chess master Bobby Fischer;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer

Now, no matter how good you are at chess, Bobby is going to be in total control. You might make some excellent moves, and Bobby would have at least 25 moves to counter you.

But at the same time you are making your own moves. You are making your choices within the options available. Yes, a master chess player can greatly influence your moves, almost force your moves, but in the end you move where you choose to move, he can do nothing about it. Bobby Fischer does not reach across and move your pieces for you, you are in complete control of where you move.

Nevertheless, a master player is going to be in control of the game, and in the end he will say "Checkmate!"

Now, I think you understand this clearly, but I doubt you will admit it.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, your OP seems shortsighted and not fully vetted because you fail to even address a definition of what you are talking about when you refer to 'logic.' You seem to think there is only one method or form of logic in view, which of course is simply a big game of question begging (ironically a logical debate fallacy).

Skandelon, I did define what I meant by logic in the giving of the link.

In the post I intended only to make a claim. I did that. I defined my terms by the giving of the link.

But in a nutshell, here is what I mean by logic said eloquently by Wilson:

There are three foundational building blocks for logic -- the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. In brief, this means that A is A, it means that A cannot be not A, and it means that for any given assertion about A, there is no middle ground between true and false. Now a great deal of damage has been caused by those who think that these laws are something we came up with down here in this world, and that it is inappropriate or even blasphemous to apply them in any way to God. It is the other way around.

You of all people should understand that protestant Christians have largely abandoned the idea that reason/logic is a sufficient guide to faith, especially given your view that faith is a gift from God, and not something that a person can arrive at through their own powers of reason/logic. Another reason this post seems shortsighted and not fully vetted...

Yes, far too many, like many on bb have abandoned logic. That is the essence of the OP.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, I will address your last statement. Skan has said something similar. It is one of the better analogies.

Imagine playing the chess master Bobby Fischer;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer

Now, no matter how good you are at chess, Bobby is going to be in total control. You might make some excellent moves, and Bobby would have at least 25 moves to counter you.

But at the same time you are making your own moves. You are making your choices within the options available. Yes, a master chess player can greatly influence your moves, almost force your moves, but in the end you move where you choose to move, he can do nothing about it. Bobby Fischer does not reach across and move your pieces for you, you are in complete control of where you move.

Nevertheless, a master player is going to be in control of the game, and in the end he will say "Checkmate!"

Now, I think you understand this clearly, but I doubt you will admit it.

I understand what you are trying to say, Winman. Anyone could.

I disagree with what you are trying to say.

The anecdote is too distant from the reality of the matter to be useful.

Bobby Fisher would have to have made the chess board and the player and the earth he sits upon and the universe in which the earth is located. Plus Bobby Fisher would have to be giving the chess player his every breath and Fisher would have to be the one powering the synopses firing in the opposing chess player's brain. Fisher would have to be spinning the protons and electrons inside the atoms that make up the chess player while holding all of those atoms together to sustain the body of that chess player.

If you could make Bobby Fisher do all of that, THEN your anecdote would be applicable.

But God CANNOT control things in the way you describe BECAUSE he is God and not just a really, really smart man. Just like it is true that BECAUSE he is God he cannot lie, he cannot contradict himself, he cannot cease to exist, etc... he cannot control things like a man controls them- only partially- not when by HIM all things consist and in HIM we live and move and HAVE OUR BEING.

 

[Winman]

I understand what you are trying to say, Winman. Anyone could.

I disagree with what you are trying to say.

The anecdote is too distant from the reality of the matter to be useful.

Bobby Fisher would have to have made the chess board and the player and the earth he sits upon and the universe in which the earth is located. Plus Bobby Fisher would have to be giving the chess player his every breath and Fisher would have to be the one powering the synopses firing in the opposing chess player's brain. Fisher would have to be spinning the protons and electrons inside the atoms that make up the chess player while holding all of those atoms together to sustain the body of that chess player.

If you could make Bobby Fisher do all of that, THEN your anecdote would be applicable.

But God CANNOT control things in the way you describe BECAUSE he is God and not just a really, really smart man. Just like it is true that BECAUSE he is God he cannot lie, he cannot contradict himself, he cannot cease to exist, etc... he cannot control things like a man controls them- only partially- not when by HIM all things consist and in HIM we live and move and HAVE OUR BEING.

Give me a break, I was trying to explain how a master chess player like Bobby Fischer can be in complete control of a game while his opponent is making his own choices within the options available him. Bobby didn't have to invent the game to understand the analogy.

The other player is making their own moves, no matter how the master player manipulates the game. The master player may place his opponent's queen in jeopardy, hoping the opponent will move his queen so he can capture a bishop (just a hypothetical). But the opponent can foolishly allow his queen to be captured if he wishes, or if he is not paying attention.

The master player cannot actually move his opponents pieces, only his opponent can do that. Nevertheless, the master player can manipulate the game and eventually place his opponent in checkmate.

Don't be so silly. You understood my point, and you know it is correct. You have great difficulty admitting when you are wrong.

 

[Luke2427]

The other player is making their own moves

The master player cannot actually move his opponents pieces, only his opponent can do that.

Then Fisher is not in "complete control".

He is not in control of whether the player moves his knight first or opens with a pawn freeing the bishop or queen.

That is not complete control by any definition.

 

[InTheLight]

I also nominate this post for "ironic post of the year".

Man, how can you narrow it down to only this particular one when there are SO many candidates?

I must say this thread is extremely entertaining....carry on, everyone.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Luke 2427...

If you think that God is LOGICAL, then you are furtur down the pike then I thought. Further down the pike then even (( Iconoclast ))

 

[Luke2427]

Luke 2427...

If you think that God is LOGICAL, then you are furtur down the pike then I thought. Further down the pike then even (( Iconoclast ))

You are funny!

Thanks for chiming in!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Excellent contribution, Heir.

I don't agree with every single thing you say here as you well know but it is well said and manifestly thoughtful.


I do think that Classical Arminianism is more logical than this formless, unsystematizeable blob of inconsistent doctrines often referred to as "non-cal".

I also think it is more logical than Openness Theology which some espouse on here.

I think Classical Arminianism is honorable. It tries to handle the Scripture honestly, does not toss logic completely out the window and it is orthodox.

I do think it embraces something illogical- that God can be in total control of all things while not being in control of many things at the same time.

While I almost wish you had more to say than what you did...I will at least add this much:

I despise two terms:
1.) "Non-Cal"
2.) "Doctrines of Grace"

One can reasonably debate no human who uses terms like these....those ARE the terms which absolutely are nothing more than jello which cannot be nailed to the wall. I love intellectually honest people, and although there are many who use such meaningless terms to describe themselves...they do so from a presumably correctable ignorance.

There are also those, and they are insufferable....who know full well what they are, and they use those terms so as to give themselves "wiggle-room" when caught in a logically inconsistent and self-contradictory argument.........I don't agree with you...but I know where you stand.

I accept the General premises of "Classical Arminianism" and will comfortably be described as such...but, it is known that I also throw in a Molinistic flair to my explanatory reasoning...But, notably, that is secondary and not a primary facet of my Theology.

I have little patience for those who claim to not be "Calvinists" by hiding behind their dis-belief in infant Baptism or Church Government philosophy...that's simple "red-herring" and instead talk of "Doctrines of Grace".

Similarly.....I'm an Arminian. Granted, I also lean towards some Molinism which makes me more appreciative of ideas like God's ordaining both the "means" and the "end" that more standard Arminians may not appreciate...but no one can reasonably interract unless they are willing to admit what the "ground-rules" are.

Some months ago...you began a thread about how important labels were, I agree with you whole-heartedly. IMO... it is amazingly arrogant to think oneself so brilliant, that there could not already possibly be a person who has already systematized something very akin to what you believe. Moreover...it is impossible to have reasonable debates with someone who refuses to identify themselves in any meaningful way.

I am not as smart as John Calvin
I am not as smart as Jacobus Arminius

Neither are you...

You know this, I know this, and for that reason alone...I appreciate interracting with you.