-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Also, I'd like to add that I can't make any sense out of that understanding of John 10:34. Jesus made himself *equal* with God. So if you are going to accept this (as you do with John 20:28) but try to relegate it to economic equality then you find yourself in a real mess. The gospels make clear, with passages I've already quoted or referred to, that they are not *economically*. And how could anyone share economic equality with the Father unless he shares the same divine essence as the Father? You can have ontological equality with economic subordination, but from a logical standpoint I don't see how you can reverse the two: economic equality with ontological subordination.
I don't know of anywhere where Jesus said he was equal withy God, but I guess I must have missed that in my Bible. And I am putting forth no arguments for economic and ontological Trinity, I will leave that to others. Basically I believe the simple, plain statements of the Bible, as spoken by the Father, Son and Apostle Paul. You seem to be using human intellect and reason to justify your beliefs
Can I ask you?
Do you believe Christianity should be built on a simple childlike faith in Christ and a complete dependence on the Holy Spirit?
Can I ask you?
Do you believe Christianity should be built on a simple childlike faith in Christ and a complete dependence on the Holy Spirit?
C
“This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. ” (John 5:18)
“The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” ” (John 10:33)
(Notice that in this latter passage Jesus could have easily pacified the angry mob by saying "Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, I don't think I'm equal with God!" Instead, he used the a minori ad majus argument that I pointed out earlier: basically saying he had the right to such claims.
We could also lay out other arguments about his "I am" statements and other indirect teachings, for example his saying that he is Lord of the Sabbath (as Warfield said, for who is Lord of the Sabbath but the God who instituted it in commemoration of His own rest (2:28), and who can forgive sins but God only (2:10, see verse 7)?). But these arguments are more involved. You can consult any standard systematic theology to see them laid out or any of the number of books devoted to laying out and defending the trinity (such as The Forgotten Trinity by James White).
Whether you realize it or not, you are doing the same thing. It's truly impossible to not use your intellect when reading and interpreting Scripture. For example, if you didn't use logic, you couldn't possibly know that you are saved.
Allow me to demonstrate:
1. If anyone repents and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ they will be saved.
2. I have repented and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Conclusion: I will be saved.
That's a logical syllogism and the type of reasoning it employs has a technical name: modus ponens.
Now, we don't pick up Scripture and think "I'm going to apply modus ponens here to see what I can come up with," but that's mainly because we are so used to thinking in those terms that we do it subconsciously.
I can't really answer your question since I don't know what you mean by terms like "a simple childlike faith" to some people that means anti-intellectualism. That isn't what I believe Christianity is built on. For some people, that means staying away from anything that makes their head hurt. That isn't what I believe Christianity is built on.
Doesn't the author of Hebrews exhort us to “leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity” (Hebrews 6:1)? We come to Christ like children, but we certainly aren't supposed to stay like children (in a sense): that's why the author of Hebrews rebukes his audience for being "dull" and needing to go over their theological ABCs, so to speak, the milk and not the meat.
But none of this is to say that reason has an equal footing with Scripture. Or, to put it in its orthodox language: reason plays a ministerial role, not a magisterial role.
“The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” ” (John 10:33)
(Notice that in this latter passage Jesus could have easily pacified the angry mob by saying "Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, I don't think I'm equal with God!" Instead, he used the a minori ad majus argument that I pointed out earlier: basically saying he had the right to such claims.
We could also lay out other arguments about his "I am" statements and other indirect teachings, for example his saying that he is Lord of the Sabbath (as Warfield said, for who is Lord of the Sabbath but the God who instituted it in commemoration of His own rest (2:28), and who can forgive sins but God only (2:10, see verse 7)?). But these arguments are more involved. You can consult any standard systematic theology to see them laid out or any of the number of books devoted to laying out and defending the trinity (such as The Forgotten Trinity by James White).
Whether you realize it or not, you are doing the same thing. It's truly impossible to not use your intellect when reading and interpreting Scripture. For example, if you didn't use logic, you couldn't possibly know that you are saved.
Allow me to demonstrate:
1. If anyone repents and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ they will be saved.
2. I have repented and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Conclusion: I will be saved.
That's a logical syllogism and the type of reasoning it employs has a technical name: modus ponens.
Now, we don't pick up Scripture and think "I'm going to apply modus ponens here to see what I can come up with," but that's mainly because we are so used to thinking in those terms that we do it subconsciously.
I can't really answer your question since I don't know what you mean by terms like "a simple childlike faith" to some people that means anti-intellectualism. That isn't what I believe Christianity is built on. For some people, that means staying away from anything that makes their head hurt. That isn't what I believe Christianity is built on.
Doesn't the author of Hebrews exhort us to “leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity” (Hebrews 6:1)? We come to Christ like children, but we certainly aren't supposed to stay like children (in a sense): that's why the author of Hebrews rebukes his audience for being "dull" and needing to go over their theological ABCs, so to speak, the milk and not the meat.
But none of this is to say that reason has an equal footing with Scripture. Or, to put it in its orthodox language: reason plays a ministerial role, not a magisterial role.
As I stated. I know of nowhere in the Bible where Jesus stated that he was equal to God, and you have shown me nowhere that he did state that. However, I can as you know give you clear cut statements where Jesus stated plainy that the Father was Greater than he, and the Father was the one true God
If I didn't use logic I couldn't know I was saved?
I am saved because I trust that the Son of God died for my sins. And I believe he is my personal saviour. Where is the logic in that?
Faith begins where logic ends. So I am saved because I trust in the words of the Bible. I do not have to0 reason it out, or go into great theological research. I believe such things take us further away from the truth. And I trust that the Spirit in me reveals to me what I should see in God's word. And that doesx not make me infallible. I am sure sometimes I am not trusting andf relying on God as much as I ought. I know my own human wisdom and intellect can only get in the way with God. The spirit reveals to us the truth of the Bible for it is spirit breathed.
Yes wec are to go onto mature teraching, but in the spirit not we ourselves.
Jesus said that the counsellor (spirit)would come and lead the diciples into truth.
A famous evangelist once said. The flesh can only get in the way with the things of God. Can you understand how God's Son came to earth in a human body and died for our sons? Can you rationalise it and work it out? I cannot. I just believe it happened.
As for the human intellect.
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the imtelligent I will frustrate
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has notr God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1Cor1:19-21
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. 1Cor3:19
I would suggest that if someones head was hurting trying to understand the truths of God's word, then they are not allowing the Spirit to work in them, rather they are trying to reason with their own human understanding.
Could you have rationalised walking round the walls of Jericho 13 times in order to take the city?
Could you rationalise Gideons army being whittled down from 32,000 men to 300 to fight a battle against overwhelming odds? Or a shephered boy becoming king of Israel?
I believe all too often man has to rely on his own wisdom, rather than simply trusting himself to God and the Holy Spirit.
If I didn't use logic I couldn't know I was saved?
I am saved because I trust that the Son of God died for my sins. And I believe he is my personal saviour. Where is the logic in that?
Faith begins where logic ends. So I am saved because I trust in the words of the Bible. I do not have to0 reason it out, or go into great theological research. I believe such things take us further away from the truth. And I trust that the Spirit in me reveals to me what I should see in God's word. And that doesx not make me infallible. I am sure sometimes I am not trusting andf relying on God as much as I ought. I know my own human wisdom and intellect can only get in the way with God. The spirit reveals to us the truth of the Bible for it is spirit breathed.
Yes wec are to go onto mature teraching, but in the spirit not we ourselves.
Jesus said that the counsellor (spirit)would come and lead the diciples into truth.
A famous evangelist once said. The flesh can only get in the way with the things of God. Can you understand how God's Son came to earth in a human body and died for our sons? Can you rationalise it and work it out? I cannot. I just believe it happened.
As for the human intellect.
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the imtelligent I will frustrate
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has notr God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1Cor1:19-21
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. 1Cor3:19
I would suggest that if someones head was hurting trying to understand the truths of God's word, then they are not allowing the Spirit to work in them, rather they are trying to reason with their own human understanding.
Could you have rationalised walking round the walls of Jericho 13 times in order to take the city?
Could you rationalise Gideons army being whittled down from 32,000 men to 300 to fight a battle against overwhelming odds? Or a shephered boy becoming king of Israel?
I believe all too often man has to rely on his own wisdom, rather than simply trusting himself to God and the Holy Spirit.
Last edited:
M
If Christ was the acceptable sacrifice for our sins, then by God's own standards, he cannot be anything less than God.
I think that one of the big hangups people have is that he came as a man to show us how to walk as a man of God. If you struggle with the deity of Jesus, I recommend studying what it meant to be a first century rabbi. A first century rabbi's whole life was about teaching his disciples to be like him in his walk with God. How could he model for them the proper way to walk with God, if they could not get past him being God.
It is kind of like the show "Undercover Boss". I haven't seen it, but it makes sense that if you wanted to know what your employees were doing, you could not let them know you were the boss.
I think that one of the big hangups people have is that he came as a man to show us how to walk as a man of God. If you struggle with the deity of Jesus, I recommend studying what it meant to be a first century rabbi. A first century rabbi's whole life was about teaching his disciples to be like him in his walk with God. How could he model for them the proper way to walk with God, if they could not get past him being God.
It is kind of like the show "Undercover Boss". I haven't seen it, but it makes sense that if you wanted to know what your employees were doing, you could not let them know you were the boss.
C
Well you can ingore the passages all you want. Nevertheless, John 5:18 says that Jesus "was ... making himself equal with God" and the Jews in John 10:33 obviously understood that he was making himself equal with God. If Jesus wasn't making that claim, he could have denied it, but he didn't; rather, he argued that he had the right tno.
I already addressed those passages, so I don't know what your point would be.
Correct.
The word *because* that you use denotes a logical process in your thought. It gives a reason (conforming to laws of logic) for the claim: I am saved.
Besides, I already addressed this exact issue, so I could just ask you to read my last post where I explicitly laid out the logic in such thinking with a nice syllogism.
I reject that definition of faith. Faith is not incoherent. Faith is not self-contradictory and self-referentially absurd. Contrary to what Soren Kierkegaard thought, accepting Christ as savior is not the most absurd thing you could do, it's the most logical thing you could do. That's why the person who says "there is no God" is a fool.
How would you know what the words of the Bible mean unless you apply logical rules of grammar and syntax? How would you know that the words of the Bible apply to you unless you first knew "This was written to all humans and I am a human. Therefore, it was written to me." That's a logical method of reasoning.
I didn't say you had to go into great theological research. And I said that "we are so used to thinking in those terms that we do it subconsciously." So I understand that you may think your didn't reason it out, but I've already demonstrated the logic that you necessarily assumed in order to arrive at where you are.
That's an incoherent position. How would go about proving that logic takes us further away from the truth? If you tried to use any reasonable argument, you would (by your own definition) be leading me and yourself further away from the truth.
It's a nonsense statement, like claiming "I know for a fact that I don't know anything for a fact." That's not faith, it's ridiculous.
You and every other religious person. What if I told you that the Spirit revealed to me that faith does NOT begin where logic leaves off. What if I tell you that the Spirit revealed to me, in God's word, that faith is logical.
Would you ask me to back up my claims (via logic/reasons?!)??
You're right, tossing logic out the window for "the Spirit of God" doesn't make you infallible. It also doesn't give you anyway to discern the difference between your own haphazard feelings and the Spirit of God. For all you know, God's moving you to do something is just your imagination or a bad case of indigestion.
I'm not trying to be facetious and overly skeptical. But whether you realize it or not, that's what your position can easily lead to if you think you're faith is contrary to logic or that using logic leads us further from the truth.
But the truth is, you don't end up being absolutely absurd because you are inconsistent. You may say you can throw logic to the wind, but all the while you are using logic and reason. For example, right now you are trying to give me logical reasons as to why I should accept your rejection of logic: because it leads further from the truth. This is all very ironic
Well I didn't say we did it all on our own, so that's irrelevant to my position.
He was speaking specifically to the 12 disciples.
The fact that I may not be able to explain one thing (the incarnation) doesn't mean that I cannot use logic in many other ways for many other things. For example, right now you are trying to use logic...
Of course, I've read all these verses before. The point is that the wisdom of the world is not wisdom at all. That's the point of the passages you quote. But the fact that "worldly wisdom" is not true wisdom (it's foolishness) doesn't indicate that there is no legitimate use of logic.
After all, if you think those verses are speaking about logic as it is in itself, then you would have to reject all science, all language, and all your beliefs like "the moon is not made of green cheese".
If that's the absurd end that you want to achieve, be my guest, but it won't do you any good to try and use LOGIC to prove you're right about any of this.
Why would you suggest that? Do you have some REASON for making this claim or did God reveal this to you directly? What if I claimed that the Spirit revealed to me that if your head doesn't hurt while trying to understand the truths of God's word, you aren't studying hard enough.
After all, Peter said there was some things in Paul's letters that were HARD to understand. Is your thesis that Peter wasn't allowing the Spirit to work in him when he made this statement?
Yes = God told me to. Why is that irrational?
Yes = God told Gideon to whittle down his army and God chose the shepherd boy to become king of Israel. I'm not sure why you think it is irrational to do something if God tells you to do it. I like Kierkegaard, but he is dead wrong about this sort of stuff.
I don't think that wisdom and the Holy Spirit are like two opposing forces. I think God gives us wisdom (Solomon) and, like Galileo, I believe that if God saw it fit to give us a mind, he intended for us to use it.
I already addressed those passages, so I don't know what your point would be.
Correct.
The word *because* that you use denotes a logical process in your thought. It gives a reason (conforming to laws of logic) for the claim: I am saved.
Besides, I already addressed this exact issue, so I could just ask you to read my last post where I explicitly laid out the logic in such thinking with a nice syllogism.
I reject that definition of faith. Faith is not incoherent. Faith is not self-contradictory and self-referentially absurd. Contrary to what Soren Kierkegaard thought, accepting Christ as savior is not the most absurd thing you could do, it's the most logical thing you could do. That's why the person who says "there is no God" is a fool.
How would you know what the words of the Bible mean unless you apply logical rules of grammar and syntax? How would you know that the words of the Bible apply to you unless you first knew "This was written to all humans and I am a human. Therefore, it was written to me." That's a logical method of reasoning.
I didn't say you had to go into great theological research. And I said that "we are so used to thinking in those terms that we do it subconsciously." So I understand that you may think your didn't reason it out, but I've already demonstrated the logic that you necessarily assumed in order to arrive at where you are.
That's an incoherent position. How would go about proving that logic takes us further away from the truth? If you tried to use any reasonable argument, you would (by your own definition) be leading me and yourself further away from the truth.
It's a nonsense statement, like claiming "I know for a fact that I don't know anything for a fact." That's not faith, it's ridiculous.
You and every other religious person. What if I told you that the Spirit revealed to me that faith does NOT begin where logic leaves off. What if I tell you that the Spirit revealed to me, in God's word, that faith is logical.
Would you ask me to back up my claims (via logic/reasons?!)??
You're right, tossing logic out the window for "the Spirit of God" doesn't make you infallible. It also doesn't give you anyway to discern the difference between your own haphazard feelings and the Spirit of God. For all you know, God's moving you to do something is just your imagination or a bad case of indigestion.
I'm not trying to be facetious and overly skeptical. But whether you realize it or not, that's what your position can easily lead to if you think you're faith is contrary to logic or that using logic leads us further from the truth.
But the truth is, you don't end up being absolutely absurd because you are inconsistent. You may say you can throw logic to the wind, but all the while you are using logic and reason. For example, right now you are trying to give me logical reasons as to why I should accept your rejection of logic: because it leads further from the truth. This is all very ironic
Well I didn't say we did it all on our own, so that's irrelevant to my position.
He was speaking specifically to the 12 disciples.
The fact that I may not be able to explain one thing (the incarnation) doesn't mean that I cannot use logic in many other ways for many other things. For example, right now you are trying to use logic...
Of course, I've read all these verses before. The point is that the wisdom of the world is not wisdom at all. That's the point of the passages you quote. But the fact that "worldly wisdom" is not true wisdom (it's foolishness) doesn't indicate that there is no legitimate use of logic.
After all, if you think those verses are speaking about logic as it is in itself, then you would have to reject all science, all language, and all your beliefs like "the moon is not made of green cheese".
If that's the absurd end that you want to achieve, be my guest, but it won't do you any good to try and use LOGIC to prove you're right about any of this.
Why would you suggest that? Do you have some REASON for making this claim or did God reveal this to you directly? What if I claimed that the Spirit revealed to me that if your head doesn't hurt while trying to understand the truths of God's word, you aren't studying hard enough.
After all, Peter said there was some things in Paul's letters that were HARD to understand. Is your thesis that Peter wasn't allowing the Spirit to work in him when he made this statement?
Yes = God told me to. Why is that irrational?
Yes = God told Gideon to whittle down his army and God chose the shepherd boy to become king of Israel. I'm not sure why you think it is irrational to do something if God tells you to do it. I like Kierkegaard, but he is dead wrong about this sort of stuff.
I don't think that wisdom and the Holy Spirit are like two opposing forces. I think God gives us wisdom (Solomon) and, like Galileo, I believe that if God saw it fit to give us a mind, he intended for us to use it.
Last edited:
Well you can ingore the passages all you want. Nevertheless, John 5:18 says that Jesus "was ... making himself equal with God" and the Jews in John 10:33 obviously understood that he was making himself equal with God. If Jesus wasn't making that claim, he could have denied it, but he didn't; rather, he argued that he had the right tno.
I already addressed those passages, so I don't know what your point would be.
cannot be relied on.
Correct.
The word *because* that you use denotes a logical process in your thought. It gives a reason (conforming to laws of logic) for the claim: I am saved.
Besides, I already addressed this exact issue, so I could just ask you to read my last post where I explicitly laid out the logic in such thinking with a nice syllogism.
I reject that definition of faith. Faith is not incoherent. Faith is not self-contradictory and self-referentially absurd. Contrary to what Soren Kierkegaard thought, accepting Christ as savior is not the most absurd thing you could do, it's the most logical thing you could do. That's why the person who says "there is no God" is a fool.
How would you know what the words of the Bible mean unless you apply logical rules of grammar and syntax? How would you know that the words of the Bible apply to you unless you first knew "This was written to all humans and I am a human. Therefore, it was written to me." That's a logical method of reasoning.
I didn't say you had to go into great theological research. And I said that "we are so used to thinking in those terms that we do it subconsciously." So I understand that you may think your didn't reason it out, but I've already demonstrated the logic that you necessarily assumed in order to arrive at where you are.
That's an incoherent position. How would go about proving that logic takes us further away from the truth? If you tried to use any reasonable argument, you would (by your own definition) be leading me and yourself further away from the truth.
It's a nonsense statement, like claiming "I know for a fact that I don't know anything for a fact." That's not faith, it's ridiculous.
You and every other religious person. What if I told you that the Spirit revealed to me that faith does NOT begin where logic leaves off. What if I tell you that the Spirit revealed to me, in God's word, that faith is logical.
Would you ask me to back up my claims (via logic/reasons?!)??
You're right, tossing logic out the window for "the Spirit of God" doesn't make you infallible. It also doesn't give you anyway to discern the difference between your own haphazard feelings and the Spirit of God. For all you know, God's moving you to do something is just your imagination or a bad case of indigestion.
I'm not trying to be facetious and overly skeptical. But whether you realize it or not, that's what your position can easily lead to if you think you're faith is contrary to logic or that using logic leads us further from the truth.
But the truth is, you don't end up being absolutely absurd because you are inconsistent. You may say you can throw logic to the wind, but all the while you are using logic and reason. For example, right now you are trying to give me logical reasons as to why I should accept your rejection of logic: because it leads further from the truth. This is all very ironic
Well I didn't say we did it all on our own, so that's irrelevant to my position.
He was speaking specifically to the 12 disciples.
The fact that I may not be able to explain one thing (the incarnation) doesn't mean that I cannot use logic in many other ways for many other things. For example, right now you are trying to use logic...
Of course, I've read all these verses before. The point is that the wisdom of the world is not wisdom at all. That's the point of the passages you quote. But the fact that "worldly wisdom" is not true wisdom (it's foolishness) doesn't indicate that there is no legitimate use of logic.
After all, if you think those verses are speaking about logic as it is in itself, then you would have to reject all science, all language, and all your beliefs like "the moon is not made of green cheese".
If that's the absurd end that you want to achieve, be my guest, but it won't do you any good to try and use LOGIC to prove you're right about any of this.
Why would you suggest that? Do you have some REASON for making this claim or did God reveal this to you directly? What if I claimed that the Spirit revealed to me that if your head doesn't hurt while trying to understand the truths of God's word, you aren't studying hard enough.
After all, Peter said there was some things in Paul's letters that were HARD to understand. Is your thesis that Peter wasn't allowing the Spirit to work in him when he made this statement?
Yes = God told me to. Why is that irrational?
Yes = God told Gideon to whittle down his army and God chose the shepherd boy to become king of Israel. I'm not sure why you think it is irrational to do something if God tells you to do it. I like Kierkegaard, but he is dead wrong about this sort of stuff.
I don't think that wisdom and the Holy Spirit are like two opposing forces. I think God gives us wisdom (Solomon) and, like Galileo, I believe that if God saw it fit to give us a mind, he intended for us to use it.
I already addressed those passages, so I don't know what your point would be.
cannot be relied on.
Correct.
The word *because* that you use denotes a logical process in your thought. It gives a reason (conforming to laws of logic) for the claim: I am saved.
Besides, I already addressed this exact issue, so I could just ask you to read my last post where I explicitly laid out the logic in such thinking with a nice syllogism.
I reject that definition of faith. Faith is not incoherent. Faith is not self-contradictory and self-referentially absurd. Contrary to what Soren Kierkegaard thought, accepting Christ as savior is not the most absurd thing you could do, it's the most logical thing you could do. That's why the person who says "there is no God" is a fool.
How would you know what the words of the Bible mean unless you apply logical rules of grammar and syntax? How would you know that the words of the Bible apply to you unless you first knew "This was written to all humans and I am a human. Therefore, it was written to me." That's a logical method of reasoning.
I didn't say you had to go into great theological research. And I said that "we are so used to thinking in those terms that we do it subconsciously." So I understand that you may think your didn't reason it out, but I've already demonstrated the logic that you necessarily assumed in order to arrive at where you are.
That's an incoherent position. How would go about proving that logic takes us further away from the truth? If you tried to use any reasonable argument, you would (by your own definition) be leading me and yourself further away from the truth.
It's a nonsense statement, like claiming "I know for a fact that I don't know anything for a fact." That's not faith, it's ridiculous.
You and every other religious person. What if I told you that the Spirit revealed to me that faith does NOT begin where logic leaves off. What if I tell you that the Spirit revealed to me, in God's word, that faith is logical.
Would you ask me to back up my claims (via logic/reasons?!)??
You're right, tossing logic out the window for "the Spirit of God" doesn't make you infallible. It also doesn't give you anyway to discern the difference between your own haphazard feelings and the Spirit of God. For all you know, God's moving you to do something is just your imagination or a bad case of indigestion.
I'm not trying to be facetious and overly skeptical. But whether you realize it or not, that's what your position can easily lead to if you think you're faith is contrary to logic or that using logic leads us further from the truth.
But the truth is, you don't end up being absolutely absurd because you are inconsistent. You may say you can throw logic to the wind, but all the while you are using logic and reason. For example, right now you are trying to give me logical reasons as to why I should accept your rejection of logic: because it leads further from the truth. This is all very ironic
Well I didn't say we did it all on our own, so that's irrelevant to my position.
He was speaking specifically to the 12 disciples.
The fact that I may not be able to explain one thing (the incarnation) doesn't mean that I cannot use logic in many other ways for many other things. For example, right now you are trying to use logic...
Of course, I've read all these verses before. The point is that the wisdom of the world is not wisdom at all. That's the point of the passages you quote. But the fact that "worldly wisdom" is not true wisdom (it's foolishness) doesn't indicate that there is no legitimate use of logic.
After all, if you think those verses are speaking about logic as it is in itself, then you would have to reject all science, all language, and all your beliefs like "the moon is not made of green cheese".
If that's the absurd end that you want to achieve, be my guest, but it won't do you any good to try and use LOGIC to prove you're right about any of this.
Why would you suggest that? Do you have some REASON for making this claim or did God reveal this to you directly? What if I claimed that the Spirit revealed to me that if your head doesn't hurt while trying to understand the truths of God's word, you aren't studying hard enough.
After all, Peter said there was some things in Paul's letters that were HARD to understand. Is your thesis that Peter wasn't allowing the Spirit to work in him when he made this statement?
Yes = God told me to. Why is that irrational?
Yes = God told Gideon to whittle down his army and God chose the shepherd boy to become king of Israel. I'm not sure why you think it is irrational to do something if God tells you to do it. I like Kierkegaard, but he is dead wrong about this sort of stuff.
I don't think that wisdom and the Holy Spirit are like two opposing forces. I think God gives us wisdom (Solomon) and, like Galileo, I believe that if God saw it fit to give us a mind, he intended for us to use it.
The truth is you are saying that many of the plain statements of the Bible cannot be relied on as the truth. I believe that many have to believe that they have a deep understanding of scripture through searching God's word, and what many so called experts in the field believe. More often than not the end result is a coontradiction of some of the plainest statments in the Bible. I will keep my simple faith, it is something I treasure
Last edited:
And I thought you and I had agreed to cease our discussion!
I n the begining was the word, and the word was with(besides) God. And the word was God(Heb1:9) He was with God in the begining.
Why would God be with God?
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father from whom all things came and for whom we live and one Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor8:6
And yes I believe Jesus words when he lived on this earth, don't you?
That they know you the only true God, andf Jesus Christ whom you have sent John17:3
I n the begining was the word, and the word was with(besides) God. And the word was God(Heb1:9) He was with God in the begining.
Why would God be with God?
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father from whom all things came and for whom we live and one Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor8:6
And yes I believe Jesus words when he lived on this earth, don't you?
That they know you the only true God, andf Jesus Christ whom you have sent John17:3
Last edited:
A
I don't know where you are getting beside from προς. We did i'm adding to the new one
How can you continue to keep using those verses such as John 17:3 and ignore the ones that point to his deity such as John 20:28? It wasn't like the title of god the judges had it's calling him I AM
How can you continue to keep using those verses such as John 17:3 and ignore the ones that point to his deity such as John 20:28? It wasn't like the title of god the judges had it's calling him I AM
Last edited:
Just to show scripture is consistent. Christ had been with the Father from the begining
I take it you do not believe the Father is the one true God. Therefore you are dismissing Christ's direct words when he walked this earth, as well as the Apostle Paul's. Why quote scripture to me if you won't accept much scripture yourself?
How does John20:28 change what I believe? Have I not quoted Heb1:8&9 enough yet
And does Christ have to be completely equal qwith his Father to have diety?
I take it you do not believe the Father is the one true God. Therefore you are dismissing Christ's direct words when he walked this earth, as well as the Apostle Paul's. Why quote scripture to me if you won't accept much scripture yourself?
How does John20:28 change what I believe? Have I not quoted Heb1:8&9 enough yet
And does Christ have to be completely equal qwith his Father to have diety?
Last edited:
C
I already dealt with the Hebrews 1:9 passage. Theos is a common title for the Father.
John 1:1 is gong to be a tough one to get around. As Robert Reymond says: "...ἦν, ēn, the imperfect of εἰμί, eimi, occurs, expressive in each case of continuous past existence. ... What John is saying is that “in the beginning,” at the time of the creating of the universe, the Word “[continuously] was” already—not “came to be.” This is clear not only from the imperfect tense of the verb but also from the fact that John declares that the Word was in the beginning with God and that “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made which has been made” (John 1:3). In short, the Word’s preexistent and continuous being is antecedently set off over against the becoming of all created things." (New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 299).
So it seems that in your view Jesus is a God who, according to the grammar of John 1:1, is eternal and worthy of worship. Furthermore, he is described as the YHWH of the OT.
So how is there such a God, Jesus, and yet only one God. Either Jesus is God the Son in the trinitarian sense, or Jesus is God and there are many Gods (polytheism) or Jesus is God and just a form of the Father (modalism). But to say that Jesus is God and not-God (because there is only one God, your use of Heb. 1:9) isn't to make any sort of coherent claim. It's simply contradictory and appears nonsensical.
Now if you want to retreat into irrationalism and say that my logic leads us away from the truth, that's fine with me because then no one who wants to have a rational discussion has to take you seriously. But you can't have your cake and eat it to.
John 1:1 is gong to be a tough one to get around. As Robert Reymond says: "...ἦν, ēn, the imperfect of εἰμί, eimi, occurs, expressive in each case of continuous past existence. ... What John is saying is that “in the beginning,” at the time of the creating of the universe, the Word “[continuously] was” already—not “came to be.” This is clear not only from the imperfect tense of the verb but also from the fact that John declares that the Word was in the beginning with God and that “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made which has been made” (John 1:3). In short, the Word’s preexistent and continuous being is antecedently set off over against the becoming of all created things." (New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 299).
So it seems that in your view Jesus is a God who, according to the grammar of John 1:1, is eternal and worthy of worship. Furthermore, he is described as the YHWH of the OT.
So how is there such a God, Jesus, and yet only one God. Either Jesus is God the Son in the trinitarian sense, or Jesus is God and there are many Gods (polytheism) or Jesus is God and just a form of the Father (modalism). But to say that Jesus is God and not-God (because there is only one God, your use of Heb. 1:9) isn't to make any sort of coherent claim. It's simply contradictory and appears nonsensical.
Now if you want to retreat into irrationalism and say that my logic leads us away from the truth, that's fine with me because then no one who wants to have a rational discussion has to take you seriously. But you can't have your cake and eat it to.
C
This is a straw-man of Christianity. Christianity teaches that "There is but one only, (Deut. 6:4, 1 Cor. 8:4–6) living, and true God, (1 Thess. 1:9, Jer. 10:10) who is infinite in being and perfection, (Job 11:7–9, Job 26:14) a most pure spirit, (John 4:24) invisible, (1 Tim. 1:17) without body, parts, (Deut. 4:15–16, John 4:24, Luke 24:39) or passions; (Acts 14:11,15) immutable, (James 1:17, Mal. 3:6) immense, (1 Kings 8:27, Jer. 23:23–24) eternal, (Ps. 90:2, 1 Tim. 1:17) incomprehensible, (Ps. 145:3) almighty, (Gen. 17:1, Rev. 4:8) most wise, (Rom. 16:27) most holy, (Isa. 6:3, Rev. 4:8) most free, (Ps. 115:3) most absolute; (Exod. 3:14) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, (Eph. 1:11) for His own glory; (Prov. 16:4, Rom. 11:36) most loving, (1 John 4:8,16) gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; (Exod. 34:6–7) the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; (Heb. 11:6) and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, (Neh. 9:32–33) hating all sin, (Ps. 5:5–6) and who will by no means clear the guilty. (Nah. 1:2–3, Exod. 34:7) ... In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: (1 John 5:7. Matt 3:16–17, Matt. 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14) the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; (John 1:14, 18) the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. (John 15:26, Gal. 4:6)" (Westminster Confession of Faith; 2.1.1 & 2.1.3).
I already addressed your attempt to harmonize the two in an early post. You never responded. Instead you started talking about how I'm using logic too much.
If Christ is deity and the Father is deity then they both share the same essence. If they both have the same essence then they are ontologically equally.
I already addressed your attempt to harmonize the two in an early post. You never responded. Instead you started talking about how I'm using logic too much.
If Christ is deity and the Father is deity then they both share the same essence. If they both have the same essence then they are ontologically equally.
Last edited:
Well if you accepted the Apostle Paul's words. He said there are a great many Gods and Lords in Heaven and on earth. But you and Angelos start from the position that we are free to dismiss the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth as well as the Apostle Paul.
And I restate my belief. People search and search the scriptures with their human wisdom and intelligence. The read continuously concerning theologians and others considered experts on the Bible. And all too often the only resultv after all that effort is a belief that plainly contradicts much of the written word.
The Bible is Spirit breathed. The Spirit would not contradict Himself.
What was that stumbling block the Apostle Paul spoke of?
And I restate my belief. People search and search the scriptures with their human wisdom and intelligence. The read continuously concerning theologians and others considered experts on the Bible. And all too often the only resultv after all that effort is a belief that plainly contradicts much of the written word.
The Bible is Spirit breathed. The Spirit would not contradict Himself.
What was that stumbling block the Apostle Paul spoke of?
A
hen the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind:
2 “Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
3 Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much. Job 38:1-4
and
Hebrews 1:10
He also says to the Son,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth
and made the heavens with your hands.
I don't know how you can get around that and say that the one who appeared to Job was God but that Jesus(the son) is not God
2 “Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
3 Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much. Job 38:1-4
and
Hebrews 1:10
He also says to the Son,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth
and made the heavens with your hands.
I don't know how you can get around that and say that the one who appeared to Job was God but that Jesus(the son) is not God
But in thesse last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things and through whom He made the universe. Heb1:2
I'm sorry, but you can't start from a position of dismissing the plain words of Christ, His Father and the Apostle Paul. You can then have no consistency at all, based on a Bible that you believe is a book of truth.
The Father created all things through the Son
And you quote Heb1:10 while refusing to accept Heb1:9
I'm sorry, but you can't start from a position of dismissing the plain words of Christ, His Father and the Apostle Paul. You can then have no consistency at all, based on a Bible that you believe is a book of truth.
The Father created all things through the Son
And you quote Heb1:10 while refusing to accept Heb1:9
Last edited: