Luke, the verses I showed support your view better than those. Take any of those verses, just one, and explain how it should be interpreted to say God controls every minute event that happens.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The greatest error on bb
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
- Status
Luke, the verses I showed support your view better than those. Take any of those verses, just one, and explain how it should be interpreted to say God controls every minute event that happens.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Truth is objective because it is a person, God. His 'logic' or 'reasoning' is truth, so to presume your truth is equal to His truth is just the LOGICAL fallacy of question begging.
I'm not going to debate the same point in two threads, so I'll differ you to the other answer...
Logic IS His logic.
The law of noncontradiction, for example, is not MY law. It is God's law- no less than the law of gravity is His law.
1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.
2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.
3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1845413&highlight=Hodge#post1845413
You just hit the nail on the head. Winman's a fine example of those who have a total disregard for any continuity of scripture. He does great violence to the word of God in his maniacal quest to discredit the Doctrines of Grace. There is no method to his madness, he just regurgitates and then sits back and laughs about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Show where I have disregarded or twisted scripture. I challenge you to show that.
I could not agree more.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I agree, thus to presume YOUR LOGIC = HIS LOGIC is just begging the question... which ironically enough is a fallacy of logical debate.
Luke, is an uncaused cause logical?
Is a person claiming to be one and three logical?
Is a person claiming to be fully God and fully man logical?
Is it logical for a man to be dead for 3 days and then be brought back to life?
Is it logical for a human to walk on water?
If this is all perfectly "reasonable and logical" according to human standards then how can you conclude that faith is even necessary in order to accept such claims?
How do those fit in your deterministic (every cause has a cause) Bolean like computer logic explain the supernatural, infinite relaties of scripture? Where does finite logic end and faith begin? Where do our ways end and HIS ways begin?
Meaningless, show where I have twisted scripture.
The very fact that all you Calvinists/Reformed attack me like a pack of dogs is because I give solid convincing LOGICAL arguments. You are afraid of me.
Thanks for posting this, you beat me to it. I'll add:
Is it logical that Jesus was born of a virgin?
Is it logical that Jesus can give vision to the blind, raise the dead, make the lame walk?
It could be that Jesus didn't know the hour of His 2nd coming while he was walking the earth, how can our puny human minds reason it out? I would have to assume that God's logical trees, if they exist, have many more branches than humanity's. They probably cross multiple dimensions as well.
Then stand up like a man and explain your goofy whacky assertion there are those that need no repentence or no Saviour and are righteous because they've never broken the law.
Yes. It is logical.
If you do not think it is, demonstrate how.
For example, the Trinity does not violate any law of logic.
Walking on water has nothing to do with logic, so I don't see your point there.
Etc etc etc...
Your issue is not with me, it is with Jesus.
Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
Who are the 99 sheep which went not astray? Was Jesus speaking of imaginary people that could not possibly exist?
Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Who are these 99 just persons who need no repentance? Why would Jesus speak about people that could not possibly exist?
Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Why would Jesus make up a story about this elder son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time?
Did the father correct the elder son and call him a hypocrite? NO, he called him "Son", a term never applied to a lost sinner, he said "thou are EVER with me", that is, he was never separated by sin from his father, and all that the father had was his.
He did not say the elder son was dead or lost like his brother.
Why would Jesus talk about people that cannot possibly exist? Wouldn't that be misleading? Wouldn't that tend to teach false doctrine? What? Doesn't Jesus know proper doctrine?
So, your argument is not with me, it is with Jesus. Jesus is the one who spoke about 99 who never went astray and needed no repentance, Jesus said the elder son never transgressed his father's commandments at any time.
Deal with it.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Remember in the CS Lewis classic "The Adventures of Narnia" when the professor invites Susan and Peter (the two oldest Pevensy children) to his study to help them deal with the inter-familial conflict Lucy has created by suggesting the very real existence of this make-believe land called “Narnia”. The professor sits behind his desk in his heavy house robe and his low-hanging reading glasses with disheveled white hair as he packs his pipe while making enquiries about the situation.
“She seems to think she’s found a magical land in the upstairs wardrobe,” Susan explained.
With a startling excitement the professor responded, “What was it like!?”
“It was like talking to a lunatic,” Peter answered.
“No, no, the magical land?,” the professor clarified.
“You’re not saying that you believe her?”
“You don’t?”
“I mean logically it’s impossible!,” answered Susan.
Frustrated by the children’s lack of belief, the professor audibly reflects, “What do they teach in school these days?”
There are a number of other places that push the same point throughout the book. We tend to miss Lewis’ lesson on the point because we share the same worldview as the older Pevensy children, relatively speaking (which is a modernist perspective which is characterized by ontology being verifiable through logic or empirical evidence). The simple fact that the Pevensy children only come to believe in Lucy’s claims when they themselves accidentally, and quite literally, stumble into Narnia when hiding in the wardrobe from the wrath of the housekeeper.
So what is Lewis’ lesson on the correspondence between logic and faith? While the lesson is certainly multi-faceted, I believe the central point of the lesson is quite simple actually – faith is faith. It is not faith if it can first be verified. Faith takes us outside of ourselves – faith takes us beyond the tiny realm of our own human experiences and certainties, which is something we need. <link>
“She seems to think she’s found a magical land in the upstairs wardrobe,” Susan explained.
With a startling excitement the professor responded, “What was it like!?”
“It was like talking to a lunatic,” Peter answered.
“No, no, the magical land?,” the professor clarified.
“You’re not saying that you believe her?”
“You don’t?”
“I mean logically it’s impossible!,” answered Susan.
Frustrated by the children’s lack of belief, the professor audibly reflects, “What do they teach in school these days?”
There are a number of other places that push the same point throughout the book. We tend to miss Lewis’ lesson on the point because we share the same worldview as the older Pevensy children, relatively speaking (which is a modernist perspective which is characterized by ontology being verifiable through logic or empirical evidence). The simple fact that the Pevensy children only come to believe in Lucy’s claims when they themselves accidentally, and quite literally, stumble into Narnia when hiding in the wardrobe from the wrath of the housekeeper.
So what is Lewis’ lesson on the correspondence between logic and faith? While the lesson is certainly multi-faceted, I believe the central point of the lesson is quite simple actually – faith is faith. It is not faith if it can first be verified. Faith takes us outside of ourselves – faith takes us beyond the tiny realm of our own human experiences and certainties, which is something we need. <link>
It's like I said, there is no method to your madness, you just regurgitate.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. Gal 3
It goes to show just how shallow and superficial your handling of the word of God is. No thought, no serious meditation, you just regurgitate and sit back and get your jollies.You explain your blatant contradiction to basic Christian fundamental truths.
Oh, so logical is whatever you say is logical, why didn't you just say so...
You're being silly.
Do you not know what logic is?
If so can you demonstrate how the trinity violates any fundamental law of logic?
Can you tell us why you think walking on water is a violation of logic?
Are you getting created laws confused with eternal attributes?
Logic is truth. God cannot contradict himself. God cannot be something and not be that something at the same time.
This is eternal truth- a timeless logic that has always been the nature of God.
It is essential to scientific thought, philosophy and even simple conversation.
Now tell me how your examples violate or even challenge these laws of logic.
Could it be that your theology is what it is because you did not know what logic is and therefore felt no need to make your doctrines consistent with each other and logical?
The scriptures are written to men, not babies or little children. All men have sinned and come short of the glory of God and therefore need to repent and accept Jesus as Saviour.
Is there any scripture that shows little children have not sinned? YES.
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
Whether you like it or not, Paul tells us here that Jacob and Esau had done no evil while they were in their mother's womb. If they had died at this point (millions of children die in their mother's womb each year), then they would have never gone astray and need no repentance.
Paul even shows as a child he was not guilty of sin if you could receive it.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Paul is clearly speaking of that time in his life when he learned the law and became aware of what sin is. Paul tells us he would not have known sin except for the law in verse 7.
Then Paul tells us he was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. This MUST be speaking of spiritual death, he could hardly be telling us he physically died.
Paul had said in chapter 5 that sin is not imputed when there is no law.
So clearly Paul is teaching that when he learned the law and became aware of what sin is that he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died.
So, contrary to what people have been falsely taught, the scriptures teach we are born spiritually alive, but when we mature and willingly sin, it is then that we spiritually die.
You can ignore the truth if you wish, but it is plain as day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now you're changing your tune. You've been called on it and you're backing out of it.
Baloney, I have said that little children and babies are not sinners for months. Any honest person here will tell you that, I haven't changed one bit. I have posted these same verses and arguments dozens of times.
One more time, I believe the 99 just persons who need no repentance and the elder son in Luke 15 must be speaking of babies and little children only. And mentally challenged persons as well.
You have to understand what sin is to be guilty of sin, that is what Paul is showing in Romans 7, It was when he knew what sin is that he spiritually died.
Here are other verses I have showed dozens of times to say babies and little children are not sinners.
Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
God did not punish the Jewish children here because they did not know between good and evil.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
This verse shows that little children do not at first know between good and evil.
By the way, this verse refutes Total Depravity, because it shows even a child can refuse evil and choose good. :laugh:
- Status