Featured The greatest error on bb

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 ))

 

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.