The greatest error on bb

[kyredneck]

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....

Where is there any mention of children and babies in the context? It's like I said, you have a maniacal obsession to stamp out the Doctrines of Grace, so maniacal that you hallucinate and see things in the text that are not there. You've gone off the deep end Winman. And you are changing your tune.

1 Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near unto him to hear him.
2 And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake unto them this parable, saying,
4 What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, [more] than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance. Lu 15

 

[Benjamin]

I figured it out. This one thing I think is the reason for MOST of the frustration and lack of progress in all of these debates.

It is a shirking of logic.

If logic is not binding then debate and discussion is utterly MEANINGLESS.

This is how posters like Winman, webdog, Skandelon and Van get away with saying things that cannot be true.

I’m not sure how you come to your conclusion that these people “get away with saying things that cannot be true.” You do realize that you haven’t presented a logical argument throughout your Op, correct? BTW, you seem to have missed HoS attempts of explaining to you (truth and logic) the differences in relation to your Op...

Let’s begin by defining what a logical “argument” consists of:

That said; let’s define the term “logical argument” from a philosophical perspective. IOW’s, you presented an “argument” in your Op, but a “philosophical argument” should begin with defining terms, involve deductive reasoning to believe a premise is true and then go about setting two premises which are followed by a valid conclusion to those premises, correct?

First, concerning your Op, I could make an “argument” that especially what you said concerning Scandelon, by my observations of his arguments (debate) against you his arguments are generally philosophically based and he is “trying” to set premises to draw out the truth toward coming to a conclusion. As a matter of fact I often sit back and chuckle at his efforts to hold you to more than one premise at a time so that a simple logical conclusion can be arrived at. I chuckle at the evasive tactics you use to avoid coming to a “philosophical logical conclusion” and I get a kick out of his patient demeanor with you. So then, in your Op you speak of frustration and lack of progress in debate and speak of logic. I find that statement hilarious especially after I dropped by the other day and read in another tread of you criticizing others that they need to take a class in philosophy and logic. You now offer an “argument” about logic, you add to that a conclusion, but in doing so you simply demonstrated once again that you have missed the point involving the use of the basic critical thinking skills learned along with basic logic 103 that gives one the tools to engage in a “true philosophical debate” (argument) which teaches of the goals to draw out the truth when presenting an argument. That is why I laughed at you starting this tread.

In my first reply ( http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1944587&postcount=17 ) I did not offer a philosophically logical argument, nor do I now within the paragraph above.

Above, I simply gave you my opinion, I added in a few horse laughs, some rhetoric, offered an explanation, some of it was personal and could even be considered Ad Hominem; I “argued” with you but none of this would be considered a philosophical logical argument. With a lot of work it and sticking to focusing on specific aspects of my reply it could be turned to one, or better said “several”, IF my opponent understood and adhered to the principles needed to do so. If I want to I could submit an argument suggesting that I could prove you don’t use a working knowledge involving philosophical principles of debate. But, I’m really not here trying to put you down, admittedly I take some pleasure in teasing and poking others at times, but what I would prefer is to actually make some progress in a debate. Frankly, you want to talk about frustration? I have given up the idea of making “progress” on this board because it is too easy to get caught up in “meaningless” argument, one that will not work towards the goals of logically drawing out the truth, but they merely end in (“then catch me if you can” because my opponents here seem to believe avoiding getting to a conclusion is a form of winning an argument. That is their goal! “Not losing an “argument” rather than getting to the truth in constructive argument” and they do NOT understand how to stay the course in “philosophical debate”…) this is not a “Debate Board” in the true philosophical sense, it is a “Board for Argument” with no guided, ethical, or meaningful purposes or in some cases it is simply a “Discussion Board”.

Concerning the error on this board, personally, I’m really not interested in the typical “fast back and forth meaningless argument” here (I remember when you PMed me once and asked me to respond faster, but I didn’t bother to address that request) because my goal is to take the time to think conclusions out, nail issues and claims down and get to the truths in the matter. I can fast-track argue with the best of them but such has little value. I don’t mind a good thought out simple discussion either, it doesn’t have to be a philosophical debate, but what I have learned I can expect to get in return for my efforts here are generally nothing more than cheap thoughtless comebacks completely disregarding the points I have taken the time to outline and address...

I’ve spent a lot of time on this board over 8 years but I’ve long realized it is well past time that I move on to a more productive format that understands, engages in and enforces ethical debate practices. I’ve recently discovered a board which does, although its main subject is more centrally focused on one theological interest, which offers to challenge me in that important area and gives an opportunity to grow in my goals of coming to understand and logically support and defend the truths behind my soteriological position.

Second, concerning your Op’s “conclusion” - It is often repeated by the Calvinist that, “God is Sovereign”.

Conclusion of the matter-

If you believed in logic; in other words, if you believed in truth, you would, it seems to me, not be a non-cal.

Yet, I would suggest that both sides would agree that God is Sovereign. To begin with, it is not even logical to begin an argument and come to a conclusion from one premise. A true, “philosophical argument” would begin then with an issue over what does “God’s Sovereignty” involve in relation to His judgment? There is an obvious question regarding the definition of God’s Sovereignty. Otherwise it is meaningless to simply keep repeating that “God is Sovereign” as it often is! Why? It is being used ambiguously to avoid claims and issues and used to beg the question rather than establish premises in an argument on which the conclusion must rest though first defining and holding to that definition to maintain a truth regarding the conclusion.

So, let’s see some progress. Just take all the above FWIW. I want to see you be logical about the following. I want to see if you really “ have it figured out”?

Luke, are you willing to focus on a second premise to complete a logical argument regarding one of the favorite expressions of the Calvinist, “God is Sovereign”?

To draw out the truth in the MEANING from the statement “God’s is Sovereign”, IOW’s, to give “MEANING” to what God’s Sovereignty consists of involving His creatures abilities, truth and God’s judgment over them one might ask, “How does God’s Sovereignty relate regarding His Divine judgment over His creatures? (Deterministically or Providentially?)”

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?

The logical necessity here is, “All of God’s ways are judgment in truth.” (Deut 32:4)

Regard logical "truth" and God's nature - "God is Truth". Can God deterministically control the actions of man and His judgment of man is in truth?

 

[Alive in Christ]

You are funny!

Thanks for chiming in!

You are very welcome.

Now...when are you going to come to your senses and ditch mr Calvin as your truth standard.

All he does is propagate confusion.

Seriously

 

[Luke2427]

I’m not sure how you come to your conclusion that these people “get away with saying things that cannot be true.” You do realize that you haven’t presented a logical argument throughout your Op, correct? BTW, you seem to have missed HoS attempts of explaining to you (truth and logic) the differences in relation to your Op...

Let’s begin by defining what a logical “argument” consists of:

That said; let’s define the term “logical argument” from a philosophical perspective. IOW’s, you presented an “argument” in your Op, but a “philosophical argument” should begin with defining terms, involve deductive reasoning to believe a premise is true and then go about setting two premises which are followed by a valid conclusion to those premises, correct?

First, concerning your Op, I could make an “argument” that especially what you said concerning Scandelon, by my observations of his arguments (debate) against you his arguments are generally philosophically based and he is “trying” to set premises to draw out the truth toward coming to a conclusion. As a matter of fact I often sit back and chuckle at his efforts to hold you to more than one premise at a time so that a simple logical conclusion can be arrived at. I chuckle at the evasive tactics you use to avoid coming to a “philosophical logical conclusion” and I get a kick out of his patient demeanor with you. So then, in your Op you speak of frustration and lack of progress in debate and speak of logic. I find that statement hilarious especially after I dropped by the other day and read in another tread of you criticizing others that they need to take a class in philosophy and logic. You now offer an “argument” about logic, you add to that a conclusion, but in doing so you simply demonstrated once again that you have missed the point involving the use of the basic critical thinking skills learned along with basic logic 103 that gives one the tools to engage in a “true philosophical debate” (argument) which teaches of the goals to draw out the truth when presenting an argument. That is why I laughed at you starting this tread.

In my first reply ( http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1944587&postcount=17 ) I did not offer a philosophically logical argument, nor do I now within the paragraph above.

Above, I simply gave you my opinion, I added in a few horse laughs, some rhetoric, offered an explanation, some of it was personal and could even be considered Ad Hominem; I “argued” with you but none of this would be considered a philosophical logical argument. With a lot of work it and sticking to focusing on specific aspects of my reply it could be turned to one, or better said “several”, IF my opponent understood and adhered to the principles needed to do so. If I want to I could submit an argument suggesting that I could prove you don’t use a working knowledge involving philosophical principles of debate. But, I’m really not here trying to put you down, admittedly I take some pleasure in teasing and poking others at times, but what I would prefer is to actually make some progress in a debate. Frankly, you want to talk about frustration? I have given up the idea of making “progress” on this board because it is too easy to get caught up in “meaningless” argument, one that will not work towards the goals of logically drawing out the truth, but they merely end in (“then catch me if you can” because my opponents here seem to believe avoiding getting to a conclusion is a form of winning an argument. That is their goal! “Not losing an “argument” rather than getting to the truth in constructive argument” and they do NOT understand how to stay the course in “philosophical debate”…) this is not a “Debate Board” in the true philosophical sense, it is a “Board for Argument” with no guided, ethical, or meaningful purposes or in some cases it is simply a “Discussion Board”.

Concerning the error on this board, personally, I’m really not interested in the typical “fast back and forth meaningless argument” here (I remember when you PMed me once and asked me to respond faster, but I didn’t bother to address that request) because my goal is to take the time to think conclusions out, nail issues and claims down and get to the truths in the matter. I can fast-track argue with the best of them but such has little value. I don’t mind a good thought out simple discussion either, it doesn’t have to be a philosophical debate, but what I have learned I can expect to get in return for my efforts here are generally nothing more than cheap thoughtless comebacks completely disregarding the points I have taken the time to outline and address...

I’ve spent a lot of time on this board over 8 years but I’ve long realized it is well past time that I move on to a more productive format that understands, engages in and enforces ethical debate practices. I’ve recently discovered a board which does, although its main subject is more centrally focused on one theological interest, which offers to challenge me in that important area and gives an opportunity to grow in my goals of coming to understand and logically support and defend the truths behind my soteriological position.

Second, concerning your Op’s “conclusion” - It is often repeated by the Calvinist that, “God is Sovereign”.



Yet, I would suggest that both sides would agree that God is Sovereign. To begin with, it is not even logical to begin an argument and come to a conclusion from one premise. A true, “philosophical argument” would begin then with an issue over what does “God’s Sovereignty” involve in relation to His judgment? There is an obvious question regarding the definition of God’s Sovereignty. Otherwise it is meaningless to simply keep repeating that “God is Sovereign” as it often is! Why? It is being used ambiguously to avoid claims and issues and used to beg the question rather than establish premises in an argument on which the conclusion must rest though first defining and holding to that definition to maintain a truth regarding the conclusion.

So, let’s see some progress. Just take all the above FWIW. I want to see you be logical about the following. I want to see if you really “ have it figured out”?

Luke, are you willing to focus on a second premise to complete a logical argument regarding one of the favorite expressions of the Calvinist, “God is Sovereign”?

To draw out the truth in the MEANING from the statement “God’s is Sovereign”, IOW’s, to give “MEANING” to what God’s Sovereignty consists of involving His creatures abilities, truth and God’s judgment over them one might ask, “How does God’s Sovereignty relate regarding His Divine judgment over His creatures? (Deterministically or Providentially?)”

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?

The logical necessity here is, “All of God’s ways are judgment in truth.” (Deut 32:4)

Regard logical "truth" and God's nature - "God is Truth". Can God deterministically control the actions of man and His judgment of man is in truth?

You seem to be talking past me. Did you look at the link I posted in the op? It was significantly shorter than this post of yours.

 

[Winman]

Where is there any mention of children and babies in the context? It's like I said, you have a maniacal obsession to stamp out the Doctrines of Grace, so maniacal that you hallucinate and see things in the text that are not there. You've gone off the deep end Winman. And you are changing your tune.

1 Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near unto him to hear him.
2 And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake unto them this parable, saying,
4 What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, [more] than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance. Lu 15

I have showed where children are mentioned, see Matthew 18;

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.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Notice that Jesus speaks of the 99 which went not astray in verse 13?

Notice in verse 14 he identifies these persons as THESE LITTLE ONES. Who is he speaking of? Little children.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus said we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. Is Jesus telling us to become little sinners?

Jesus said that children have angels who always behold the face of his Father in heaven. Does this sound like sinners to you?

I have shown here that Jesus was speaking of little children. Are you satisfied now?

 

[kyredneck]

I have showed where children are mentioned, see Matthew 18;....

This is not Lk 15, and you are changing your tune.

I asked:

"Are you saying it's possible for one to live a sinless life from the day of birth? Or age of accountability or whatever?"

Winman said:

"...Jesus spoke of persons who need no repentance, they must exist. No way would Jesus imply false doctrine."

I asked for verification of what I was hearing:

"...You actually believe there are those that have lived sinless lives...."

Winman said:

"I believe it because the scriptures and Jesus himself said it:

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"

I asked:

"If 99% of mankind has no need of the Saviour, then why did Christ die?"

Winman said:

"You have to deal with the words of Jesus, not me. I am not the one who spoke of 99 just persons who need no repentance, Jesus did. Do you really think Jesus would speak of people who could not possibly exist?

Why would Jesus tell the ridiculous story (if Original Sin is true) of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time?"

And now you're trying to weasel out and say you were talking about babies?

 

[Winman]

This is not Lk 15, and you are changing your tune.

I asked:

"Are you saying it's possible for one to live a sinless life from the day of birth? Or age of accountability or whatever?"

Winman said:

"...Jesus spoke of persons who need no repentance, they must exist. No way would Jesus imply false doctrine."

I asked for verification of what I was hearing:

"...You actually believe there are those that have lived sinless lives...."

Winman said:

"I believe it because the scriptures and Jesus himself said it:

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"

I asked:

"If 99% of mankind has no need of the Saviour, then why did Christ die?"

Winman said:

"You have to deal with the words of Jesus, not me. I am not the one who spoke of 99 just persons who need no repentance, Jesus did. Do you really think Jesus would speak of people who could not possibly exist?

Why would Jesus tell the ridiculous story (if Original Sin is true) of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time?"

And now you're trying to weasel out and say you were talking about babies?

I have not changed one thing I have ever said. What you are attempting to do is put words in my mouth I have never said. I believe all persons when they mature and understand right from wrong will choose to willingly sin.

But I do not believe babies and very little children are sinners. Jesus said "little" children, he said these "little" ones. In the story he had picked up a child and set him in the midst of the disciples, so this was obviously a small child, maybe 3-5 years old.

Now, you can try to twist what I have said, nobody is fooled. I bet even your Reformed/Calvinist friends can see what you are attempting to do. I have been saying this about little children and babies for months.

You guys can't be honest, because you cannot win an honest debate.

 

[Skandelon]

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?

The logical necessity here is, “All of God’s ways are judgment in truth.” (Deut 32:4)

Regard logical "truth" and God's nature - "God is Truth". Can God deterministically control the actions of man and His judgment of man is in truth?

I'm afraid your logically sound argument may have fallen upon deaf ears because apparently Luke believes Truth = Logic and whatever he believes is "Truth" must therefore be "Logical" and the rest of us best fall in line or we will defy logic and deny truth, if for no other reason than it is in opposition to his beliefs. In short, we all are wrong because he is right.

You have to give him this, he plays the best game of Question Begging I've ever seen. :type:

 

[Luke2427]

I'm afraid your logically sound argument may have fallen upon deaf ears because apparently Luke believes Truth = Logic and whatever he believes is "Truth" must therefore be "Logical" and the rest of us best fall in line or we will defy logic and deny truth, if for no other reason than it is in opposition to his beliefs. In short, we all are wrong because he is right.

You have to give him this, he plays the best game of Question Begging I've ever seen. :type:

You play the best game of question EVADING I've ever seen.

I am begging no questions by contending that the law of noncontradiction is not a man made law and that your theology should yield to it.

This mess is what you do when you are whipped.

 

[Skandelon]

Ben, to pick up on your logically sound argument:

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.
​

I just wanted to add that the very connotation of the word 'responsible' would have to be violated for the first logical construct to be true. For the idea of being 'responsible' connotes the ability to respond, thus this would be tantamount to saying "God treats us as if we have the ability to respond when we don't." or "God holds us responsible for something only He is responsible for."

This is a clearly illogical, unbiblical, unjust and untrue.

 

[OldRegular]

Luke

Very interesting OP. I believe you have stirred up a hornets nest [snipped - insulting]

If there is anyone on this Baptist Board who believed I was referring to them in the above post as a "gnat" or a "swarm of gnats", which was deleted from the above post as insulting, then I want them to know that I most humbly apologize.

I certainly would not want to be called a "gnat" though I am routinely been called far worse on this Baptist Board since I joined in 2004. Believing in the Doctrines of Grace, while at the same time rejecting Dispensationalism, requires an alligator hide on this Baptist Board. And you soon learn to ignore those those snide remarks questioning your Salvation, such as: Are you sure you are "Rapture Ready" Old Regular?

Now I suppose that it is preferable to be called a hornet rather than a "gnat" but you know Scripture tells us that we are "Grasshoppers" of all things. Of course that is relative to Holy God not someone else on the Baptist Board. I present the pertinent Scripture:

Isaiah 40:18-26
18. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
19. The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.
20. He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.
21. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
23. That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
24. Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.
25. To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
26. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

 

[Skandelon]

You play the best game of question EVADING I've ever seen.

What question have I evaded?

I am begging no questions by contending that the law of noncontradiction is not a man made law and that your theology should yield to it.

Law of noncontradiction? Do you mean Wilson's comment from your link in which he said, "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."

Let's apply that law of noncontradiction to your statements about God's choices, shall we?

Luke says that God doesn't really make choices despite the fact that God himself claims to make choices in scripture.

A = Choice
Choice = Choice
Choice cannot be 'not a Choice'
Given a Biblical assertion about Choice (God chooses), there is no middle ground between true and false.

You're view is not logical by your own law of non-contradiction.

This mess is what you do when you are whipped.

I thought you were going to stop this immaturity? Based on previous experience, you tend to make these types of immature accusations when you can't answer the arguments being posed to you.

Respond to Ben's logical argument and this one if you are really interested in addressing logical proofs. Otherwise, we will continue to expect more fruitless banter.

 

[Winman]

Ben, to pick up on your logically sound argument:

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.
​

I just wanted to add that the very connotation of the word 'responsible' would have to be violated for the first logical construct to be true. For the idea of being 'responsible' connotes the ability to respond, thus this would be tantamount to saying "God treats us as if we have the ability to respond when we don't." or "God holds us responsible for something only He is responsible for."

This is a clearly illogical, unbiblical, unjust and untrue.

Nice post Skan, you and Ben are correct.

This is not complicated, I find it almost impossible to believe that any halfway intelligent person cannot understand and agree with your last statements I highlighted. I can't believe it, they know their doctrine is absolutely illogical.

The real question for me is why anyone would choose to believe what is so obviously false???

 

[percho]

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.

I will bet good money, or bad, that if they are over 110 years old they are dead.

 

[webdog]

Wow, go away for a while and come back to see 10 additional pages. Since I'm not going to go back through them all, I'm betting its more of the same from the first few pages. These troll type op's need to be put to rest a lot sooner than they are. And that's exactly what these threads are designed for, trolling.

 

[quantumfaith]

Do you believe one person in the Godhead can know something and the other two not know the same thing?

I honestly don't know and honestly cannot explain the hypostatic union, but none the less we have the words of Christ himself.

 

[OldRegular]

I honestly don't know and honestly cannot explain the hypostatic union, but none the less we have the words of Christ himself.

I agree that we have the words of Jesus Christ and I also do not understand. That being said it is beyond reason to me to believe that there can be a breech in the Godhead. It is for this reason that I have argued on another thread that it was the human nature of Jesus Christ who cried out on the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?. It is inconceivable to me that there could be a breech between God the Father and God the Son or that one person of the Godhead could know something the others did not!

 

[Luke2427]

Wow, go away for a while and come back to see 10 additional pages. Since I'm not going to go back through them all, I'm betting its more of the same from the first few pages. These troll type op's need to be put to rest a lot sooner than they are. And that's exactly what these threads are designed for, trolling.

That's exactly what this post is designed for- and almost all of yours for that matter.

 

[Luke2427]

What question have I evaded?

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?

Law of noncontradiction? Do you mean Wilson's comment from your link in which he said, "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."

Let's apply that law of noncontradiction to your statements about God's choices, shall we?

Luke says

Who are you talking to?

You started out by saying, "...your..." as if you are talking to me then you said, "Luke says...."

Strange.

that God doesn't really make choices despite the fact that God himself claims to make choices in scripture.

A = Choice
Choice = Choice
Choice cannot be 'not a Choice'
Given a Biblical assertion about Choice (God chooses), there is no middle ground between true and false.

You're view is not logical by your own law of non-contradiction.

A does not equal choice. Your premise is wrong. We've been over and over this.

 

[Luke2427]

I thought you were going to stop this immaturity? ... we will continue to expect more fruitless banter.

As soon as you stop this immature fruitless banter:

I'm afraid your logically sound argument may have fallen upon deaf ears because apparently Luke believes Truth = Logic and whatever he believes is "Truth" must therefore be "Logical" and the rest of us best fall in line or we will defy logic and deny truth, if for no other reason than it is in opposition to his beliefs. In short, we all are wrong because he is right.

You have to give him this, he plays the best game of Question Begging I've ever seen. :type: