Featured The greatest error on bb, part deux.

Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.

Augustine.

 

The greatest error on the bulletin board is to reject God's truth. Instead we are told to accept man-made doctrines that make no sense, because we simply lack the "spiritual eyes" to see how they make sense.

Jesus pointed out doctrines that made no sense, that made God's word to no effect, and so to assume a man-made doctrine is correct even though it conflicts with scripture is simply silly.

Lets take 1 Corinthians 2:14. This is cited by Calvinism as supporting the idea of total spiritual inability of natural, unregenerate men of flesh. And no matter how many times it is pointed out that the verse in context says the exact opposite, this nonsense is propounded again and again, and defended by ad homenium's such as you lack "spiritual eyes."

The natural person does not accept the "things of the Spirit of God." Now does this refer to the things which are spiritual meat or spiritual milk, or both? Now lets read on and see what is crystal clear in scripture. Whatever "things" are in view are things understood only by those who have been indwelt with the Holy Spirit, for the spiritual person has the mind of Christ.

Now we reach the verse which makes clear only spiritual meat was in view in verse 14, not spiritual milk. 1 Corinthians 3:1, But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual people. So Paul now addresses them as men of flesh. Therefore the passage says the natural man can understand spiritual milk, the opposite of what Calvinism claims.

And if we look at all the other verses that supposedly support Calvinism, they have been altered in the same way, adding to scripture the assumptions of Calvinism, when a careful study shows scripture is teaching the opposite doctrine, i.e. limited spiritual ability of natural men which can be taken away by the practice of sin, or by God for His purpose, Romans 11.

 

I find people like Jonah who was saved, and disobeyed, but God never let them go...much like the younger son in the prodigal son account. He was always a son, no matter what he did or how he saw himself. What I do not find is anyone who was saved being allowed to climb out of God's hand become unsaved.

 

So is it your contention that Augustine did not believe in the ultimacy of reason in theology?

Do you believe your theology must bend to logic?

 

actually, its people who reject the clear teaching of the scriptures of BOTH the nature of God/mankind, and instead try to spoon into the Bible their own "man made doctrines!"

 

My contention, as is Augustine's, is that understanding comes from faith, not the other way around.

Understanding how a miracles might be possible comes from the belief that there is a God who is able to perform miracles. Belief that God exists and that His Word is true must precede reasoned and logical arguments that presume those truths as valid and established.

 

This entire line of threads must be rethought....

Simply put, the definitions of logic and it's parameters and what logic is and isn't is misunderstood by too many of this board. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

I repeat THIS is IN FACT a LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENT:

1.) All frogs are street-fighters
2.) All street-fighters are devoted to non-violence
Therefore:
All frogs are devoted to non-violence

Is this Logical?
YES...absolutely, and unequivocally...this is classic inarguable "Modus Ponens" and it is "Valid"...

The conclusion is ultimately false...but only because the premesis are false...but the argument form is consistent and (provided the premesis were true) the conclusion would also be true.

The argument must be not only "valid" .....but also "sound"...and "soundness" means that the premesis are true.

Skan's arguments are logical
Arminianism is logical
Calvinism is logical
Luke is logical

Luke's general premise that "Sovereignty" necessarily implies exhaustive deterministic control is the "Premise" which we disagree on.... If Luke is wrong..than we Arminians are probably quite right...If he is correct, than Calvinism essentially holds true....That's the source of most of these debates.
Lets move on.

P.S. Any confusion between "Natural Law" and "logic" must be put to rest...

The idea that "All frogs are street-fighters" is PERFECTLY logical...
So also is the idea that "Men can walk on water"......
That a wooden staff might turn into a snake is perfectly "logical"...inasmuch as logic doesn't care what the general properties of "wood" and "biological life-forms" are....

Logic doesn't give a flying flip about "Natural Law".
Vulcans in "Star-Trek" almost ALWAYS misuse the term "logical"...just accept that. Don't Osmose your understanding of the term "logical" from Spock...He was only as "logical" as the script-writer who created him was.

But Natural Law might help us to discern whether the truth-claims in an argument are sound...We arive upon "truth" when an argument is BOTH "valid" (logic's domain) AND "sound" meaning the premises are in fact reflective of reality. Now...let's get logical for a second and explain to Luke that God is not, in fact, the author of sin shall we???

God is ALWAYS logical.

 

The logic of natural laws can be violated too. So, while the principle of logic itself may not be violated by a supernatural miracles, like walking on water, it certainly presumes the existence of a Being who is able to carry out such acts. In other words, the violation of natural law is not illogical for a Christian because we presume (by faith) One exists who is able to violate such laws. That is why I kept referring back to the eventuality of the appeal to faith, not logic.

The natural physical laws are actually the products of logic themselves, formed by reason from observable/measurable facts that are well established and uncontroversial. Thus, violating these physical laws is also a violation of logic (unless, as I noted, there is an accepted premise that One exists who is able to violate these physical laws).

 

Believing that God exists is the RESULT of the application of logic. It is not some mystical result of God sprinkling Holy Ghost fairy dust over one's brain.

But, yes, once you have come to the logical conclusion that God exists and is certainly the God of the Bible then there is a great deal of understanding that comes from faith.

But even FAITH is not some silly CHOICE one makes VOID of the application of logic. The Greek word for faith means to be fully PERSUADED which does not happen apart from the working of logic.

 

I agree with this entire post.

The problem, however, is that what is being argued by many here is that LOGIC is not binding as it pertains to God and theology.

These people are arguing that they don't HAVE to make the tenets of their theology logical because they say either #1- God is NOT logical or #2- that he IS logical in some mysterious way not known to us and therefore logic does not apply.

BUT EITHER WAY logic is not applicable to God and theology in their minds.

So what on EARTH is the point of speaking with such people if they can make contentions that are TOTALLY ILLOGICAL?

There is NONE.

ANY DISCUSSION with such people is UTTERLY useless.

 

Just a question... So, by this argument are you saying faith is a product of simple applied logic, or a supernatural effectual work of the Holy Spirit?

 

False dichotomy.

Why do you assume it has to be either or?