I did not ask you that. you have me mixed up with someone else.
-
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
I did not ask you that. you have me mixed up with someone else.
The idea is that the addition of a super-natural act of God's power places Aaron's rod into a different relationship as the relationship of the Egyptian sorcerors rods.....it exists in a different category. It would be "illogical" to think that Aaron's rod WITHOUT Divine interjection could be a serpent, but it is perfectly logical provided Divine interjection. It is "super-natural" and therefore not within the category of natural phenomenon.....but it is not "illogical" for the "super-natural" to be, well, "super-natural".
It's a subtle distinction perhaps, but a real one.
On a side-note:
C.S. Lewis' book "Miracles" discusses this in some fascinatingly eye-opening detail: He defends the proposition that miracles are rarely God even "breaking" or "super-ceding" natural law...but more accurately, imposing added information or influence. He describes (I'm paraphrasing) the Immaculate conception this way: (para)
"If a normal woman has a Divinely implanted seed than a normal and natural result will occur; namely, according to natural law, 9 months later, a child will be born". No laws are broken, God has super-naturally added influence into normal and natural law....."
It's a fascinating read and quite insightful. It would be more like (in mathematical terms) God isn't altering the value of 2 and 2 to equal something other than four (like 5)...but, rather adding a variable (like 1) so that what would other-wise be simply 2and2 is now 2+2+1=5....Maybe mathematicians like Quantum could appreciate that
What I find interesting is that you and I do not agree at all on predestination and monergism vs synergism, etc...
But we are BOTH big C. S. Lewis fans. (To your credit here C. S. Lewis would have been closer to you soteriologically than me)
Doug Wilsom is as much Calvinistic as I am. Piper as well. And they are both HUGE fans of Lewis.
And this is why Calvinists and Arminians can get along well if they both love Lewis: LOGIC.
Lewis' logic was fantastic. This is what made him a giant among apologists.
But what I find on this site is that BOTH SIDES throw logic in the trash and act like their theology does not have to bend to it.
Do you agree with me that, really, if the fundamental laws of logic are not binding on both parties involved in debate that debate is utterly pointless?
I can say something is true and false at the same time. I can say something is A and NOT A at the same time. What is the point in talking to me? Nothing can be settled.
Ok, I went back and you asked me about when God told Abraham he would go down now to see Sodom and Gomorrah and if they had done altogether according to the cry of it, and if so, he would know. Then you asked;
"Do you think this means that God DID NOT KNOW BEFOREHAND what would happen?"
Well, I think God told the truth. As I said before, I believe God limited himself at times as when he wrestled as a man with Jacob. I believe the account as written, God said Jacob prevailed over him in the match.
I believe this scripture in Gen 18 as well where God appeared as a man to Abraham and said he would go down and observe Sodom and Gommorah, and then he would know if they had done as he had heard their cry.
Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Now I ask you, why is it illogical for me to believe God's words as literal?
Does not God have the ability to limit himself? So, why is it illogical to believe this statement of God's as literal?
Last edited by a moderator:
double-post
Last edited by a moderator:
Alive in Christ
New Member
This was posted,,,
Of course that is logical
Just as logical as a man coming across another man dead for 3 days, and and other man commands the dead man to come out..and he does.
Yep. God is alwas in line with the dictates of logic. :laugh:
Of course that is logical
Just as logical as a man coming across another man dead for 3 days, and and other man commands the dead man to come out..and he does.
Yep. God is alwas in line with the dictates of logic. :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Supernaturally it is logical. From a finite perspective no miracle is logical.
Alive in Christ
New Member
I know
I am addresing these dear ones who are advocating that God is always logical.
God is NOT always logical
You just will not be helped.
The reason you know so little is because you think you know so much.
It is not just me who has tried to enlighten you here.
You just refuse to get it.
Laws of nature and laws of logic are two different things.
You'll have to face the fact that somebody knows more than you on this subject to learn it though. So you probably will never learn it.
AIC....God is always logical. If you are coming from a proper definition of logic that is not difficult to believe.
This has been explained, but perhaps not sufficiently for some yet. Only if you are mistaken about what logic is and isn't would you insist that God does illogical things.
He's not saying God doesn't do illogical things, as far as I know. He is saying what I am, that perception from a finite being APPEARS to be illogical, but since we accept it on faith, we believe it is in fact logical since God will not do anything illogical.
back to trolling, eh?
You ever think just maybe...possibly...you are wrong? After all, you hold to a false view of soteriology.
HOS said "The idea is that the addition of a super-natural act of God's power places Aaron's rod into a different relationship as the relationship of the Egyptian sorcerors rods.....it exists in a different category. It would be "illogical" to think that Aaron's rod WITHOUT Divine interjection could be a serpent, but it is perfectly logical provided Divine interjection. It is "super-natural" and therefore not within the category of natural phenomenon.....but it is not "illogical" for the "super-natural" to be, well, "super-natural".
It's a subtle distinction perhaps, but a real one. "
This is the exact thing I have been saying. You agree with him...and mock me. Your reading comprehension is what's illogical
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe this will help:
Luke, it seems as if to get anywhere ("make progress") in regards to “logical truth” maybe we should start at the beginning so let’s start with the basics and see where your objection to my logic begins, okay? Can we test your logical expertise and see how far you are willing to go? Will you answer the following?
Given:
T = True
F = False
I’ll even give you the first one:
T + T = T
What does:
T + F =
F + T =
F + F =
Now, assuming your correct and that you’re warmed up now let’s start with some easy premises?
Given:
A = Man’s choice
B = Not Man’s choice
A + A =
A + B =
B + A =
B + B =
Should be easy enough, correct?
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 =
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.
You chose fried catfish over boiled shrimp. Why? Because it is what you desired most at the moment. Why? Because your taste buds and palate, whether by physiological make up or by training have come to prefer catfish over shrimp. Why? Because either that is the way God made you physically or because that is the culture in which God placed you to be raised.
Now, fried catfish has a great deal more cholesterol than boiled shrimp and you will face the consequences of the choice you made. This is true REGARDLESS of the physiological make-up of your taste buds or the culture in which you were raised. You can blame God, if you like, but I would advise you to fear Him more than that.
Now, you might argue, but I COULD have chosen boiled shrimp. If you had chosen boiled shrimp there would have been a reason for that, too. You still would have chosen what you most desired. It may be that what you most desired was to maintain a healthy cholesterol. But there would have been a REASON why healthy cholesterol levels were most desirable to you. As you ask why two or three times you will still come down to God.
As I said, it is pointless talking to people who care nothing for logic.
I am wrong often. I admit it when I am. I apologize when I am persuaded that I have done wrong and I withdraw remarks when am proven wrong.
Frankly, you cannot say these things, and everybody who knows you on BB knows it.
You do not learn because you cannot be taught because you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT FACE THE FACT that someone knows more than you.
You are wrong about logic. You do not know what you are talking about and it is patently obvious to everyone who knows beans from apple butter about this subject.
But that has never stopped you before so there's no reason to think it will stop you now.
so instead of JUST addressing what I said implicating you on your inconsistency in high fiving HOS while mocking me, you further troll. This has been YOUR MO from day one on this board. Evidenced by your lack of a response repeatedly to Benjamin's challenge.
More evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.
I did respond to Ben this morning.
It is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that walking on water defies logic.
It does not.
Whether one is kept from sinking by helium or divine intervention is irrelevant as it pertains to the logic of it.
Your logic goes like this:
Premise 1- Logic dictates that no man can ever walk on water
Premise 2- Jesus was a man who walked on water
Conclusion- Logic is bunk
But your conclusion is wrong because your first premise is wrong.
Now what I actually said was that from our vantage point it defies logic, not God's. HoS referred to it as a super natural act and you somehow are ready to give him the Nobel prize.
Depends on vantage point.
:laugh: Not quite. Nice straw man, though!
It does not defy logic PERIOD- vantage point is irrelevant.
From OUR VANTAGE POINT tell me how Jesus walking on water defies any one of the following fundamental laws of logic
The law of identity- He did not cease to be what he was when he walked on water.
The law of noncontradiction- he was not himself and suddenly NOT himself the moment he began to walk on water
The law of the excluded middle- what was true about him was still completely true and had not at all become false the moment he began to walk on water
His walking on water did not undermine any one of the laws of logic.
You seem to me to still be getting the laws of nature which are MUTABLE, temporary, created laws mixed up with the laws of logic which are IMMUTABLE, ETERNAL and UNCREATED.
You use the laughing symbol more than anybody on BB, I bet.
Perhaps you don't realize it- but it is insulting the way you use it. It is quite evident that you intend it to appear as if you are laughing at the stupidity of your opponent. So you might as well say, every time you use it this way- "Your are a stupid person." Body language is still language.
Furthermore, it is a tactic of appearance bolstering. It is not an argument. It is designed to make one's self LOOK strong. More often than not when one has to use body language to do that it is because he senses that he is not able to look strong with his words and arguments.
It is what Joe Biden did in the debate against Paul Ryan. EVERYBODY knew that Paul Ryan was WAY smarter than Joe Biden. So Joe came up with a strategy. He would FAIN strength by laughing because he could not appear strong in outright debate.
The fact that you use the laughing symbol as often or more so than Joe Biden "laughed" at Paul Ryan is not a mark in your favor. To more thoughtful people it is obvious that it is a sign of your weakness in debate.
- Status