Revelation 2:21

According to "Calvinism" individuals are sent to Hell because they refuse to repent of their sins and to place their faith in Christ.

 

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel . . . . For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Romans 9:6, 15-16

 

Right rev g, and where does faith come from? God. Am I missing what the problem here is? Why can't these people see that Faith does bring us to repentence AND faith comes from God. God does not come to faith.

 

Sigh. It doesn't. It uses Jacob and Esau as part of a larger illustration that God foreordains things without respect to what we do. But since the chapter (indeed, the book) is about salvation, that's the application of the principle, not to Jacob and Esau, but to us.

 

In Romans 9, The verses about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, are what we call in the preaching world, "An old Testement ILLUSTRATION" Paul then makes his point in the following. People get so offended by the illustration that they miss what Paul is saying. That is like not listening to a solid preacher cause you didn't like his opening joke.

 

Point 1: "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." I Corinthians 1:25
--I'm sorry, where does the word "logic" appear in this verse? How then does it say that "man's logic" (whatever THAT is supposed to mean) is foolish?
--Even if "Paul SAID it", you still used it as YOUR starting premise, so my point is still valid.

Point 2: So scripture is "opposed to pure logic"??? Nope, scripture is opposed to FAULTY logic (ie what you are using) not PURE logic.
--"That means that logic that doesn't line up with scripture is foolishness."...At least that statement is correct, as far as it goes. However, "that means" connects this last sentence with the previous one in which you set Scripture in opposition to "pure" logic, which is pretty shabby reasoning. Since your premise statement pits Scripure against "pure logic" ("I will stick to scripture as OPPOSED to pure logic"), your explanatory sentence ("That means...") implies that the "logic" that DOES "line up with Scripture" would be IMPURE LOGIC, as "impure" is the opposite of "pure". Unless, of course, you meant that the logic OPPOSED TO Scripture ("pure logic") and the "logic THAT DOESN'T LINE UP WITH Scripture" are two different things. If you meant them to be the SAME, however, then this would reduce to: "Pure Logic = Foolishness", which itself would be "foolishness".
--Furthermore, since you "...didn't say that ALL logic is bad", and you're "sticking with Scripture as opposed to PURE logic", are you suggesting that PURE logic is BAD? And by LOGICAL (hee, hee) deduction, that IMPURE logic is GOOD?

"It seems you failed elementary logic."
--Nope, it looks like YOU are the one that needs the refresher course, Ace...unless you want to clarify what you MEANT.

 

Logic and wisdom is the same. Unless it is based upon higher knowledge, and without scripture it is not.

Any logic that does not align with scripture is pure human logic, and is therefore, "faulty logic"

So Sorry to ruin your "ACE"

Try again.

 

Wrong, Good logic is based upon good wisdom, good Wisdom has influence over all logic. Bad wisdom results in ILLogic. Even so, Logic needs no wisdom to remain logic, and wisdom needs no logic to remain wisdom.

 

I second that.

 

Bet you never thought of that!