 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Is the OT view really a "logical" view? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/13/2004 10:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by lock
I believe that it is impossible for the natural man to choose to believe and obey God because the flesh is weak. Do you agree or disagree?
You have the problem that if the natural man is that inept, they could never know whether they've 'left' the natural state or not.
Any attempt to believe the words of a book, or trust the feelings of a 'spirit' could always be attributed to their natural state fooling themselves.
it's a liars' paradox
We have been there, done that.
You've been there? What was your answer?
www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3589
quote:
So you're using the words of TOTALLY corrupt men to support the thesis that all people are TOTALLY corrupt?
That's circular reasoning.
Oh, I see. circular reasoning
Titus 1:12, 13
I see a faulty premise.
I'm a liar. All men are liars. Now I'm not a liar.
At what point do we believe or not believe you?
Mr. Khan-
I do not ask that you believe me. I present scripture. Believe the scripture. Yes, I have circular reasoning because all of what I say comes from the bible. If you think the bible is corrupt, then your arguement is correct and I am one hurting unit. But if the bible is truth, then I am a new creation in Christ.
quote:
1. your premise is that you and all men are liars (totally depraved, totally corrupt)
2. you quote the words of other men to prove this
You don't see the paradox of this?
If we accept your premise (1), we can NOT accept (2) or anything you say, [including (1)]
Sisters-
I understand what you are saying. If the bible was written only by corrupt, depraved humans, then yes, your reasoning stands. But the bible is inspired by the holy spirit of God, written through corrupt, depraved humans. That has always been my view. Do you really disagree with that? In order to disprove my view are you willing to say that the bible in not inspired by God?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/13/2004 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
You are mistating my view (as usual), lock.
quote:
I see the difference between our views is that you believe it is within natural man to accept or not accept God.
I do not believe that man can accept God apart from from the prevenient grace of God enabling him to accept. I have stated this several times in our discussions. I fail to grasp why you continue to misrepresent my views.
JEE-
I apoligize for the misrepresentaion of your view. When it comes down to the actual choice to accept God's grace or not, in your view, does God influence the choice?
Yes, of course. Where have I ever stated otherwise? As Tom said, ALL choices are influenced.
quote:
Maybe I need to state it in the negative; I believe that it is impossible for the natural man to choose to believe and obey God because the flesh is weak. Do you agree or disagree?
Apart from the illumination and awakening of his conscience by the Holy Spirit, yes it is impossible. However, I would qualify that this inability is not due to "weakness" but rather to unwillingness on the part of the sinner, or else how else can he be truly guilty of sinning?
The prevenient grace of God illuminates and awakens the sinner to his need, in kindness leads him to repentance, and in so doing, enables him to repent and believe the Gospel.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/14/2004 1:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
I understand what you are saying. If the bible was written only by corrupt, depraved humans, then yes, your reasoning stands. But the bible is inspired by the holy spirit of God, written through corrupt, depraved humans. That has always been my view. Do you really disagree with that? In order to disprove my view are you willing to say that the bible in not inspired by God?
No you don't get it. I have disproved your view by pointing out the circular reasoning and liar's paradox brought on by your false premise.
Your premise is that NO ONE can understand ANYTHING about God.
Then you quote the words of other people to prove this.
That's calling everyone liars, then quoting some of these liars to prove it.
You're not very good at apologetics.
I bet you heard and/or read the word of God and volitionally believed it when you got "saved". Now you're trying to disprove that. LOL
| | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/14/2004 3:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
quote:
Originally posted by lock
I understand what you are saying. If the bible was written only by corrupt, depraved humans, then yes, your reasoning stands. But the bible is inspired by the holy spirit of God, written through corrupt, depraved humans. That has always been my view. Do you really disagree with that? In order to disprove my view are you willing to say that the bible in not inspired by God?
No you don't get it. I have disproved your view by pointing out the circular reasoning and liar's paradox brought on by your false premise.
Your premise is that NO ONE can understand ANYTHING about God.
Then you quote the words of other people to prove this.
That's calling everyone liars, then quoting some of these liars to prove it.
You're not very good at apologetics.
I bet you heard and/or read the word of God and volitionally believed it when you got "saved". Now you're trying to disprove that. LOL
Sisters-
Everything that I say is backed by scripture. You disprove me with worldly logic. That tells me I am on the right path. You can stick withyour worldly logic, I will stick with the bible. In all your reasoning you totally disregard the work of the spirit. My apologetics are fine because I use the word of God. You can think whatever you want about your so-called apologetics, but they are saturated with worldly logic. I notice how you dodged the question involving the inspiration of the bible. Are you willing to say the bible is not the inspired truth of God in order to disprove me?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/14/2004 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Everything that I say is backed by scripture. You disprove me with worldly logic. That tells me I am on the right path. You can stick withyour worldly logic, I will stick with the bible. In all your reasoning you totally disregard the work of the spirit. My apologetics are fine because I use the word of God. You can think whatever you want about your so-called apologetics, but they are saturated with worldly logic. I notice how you dodged the question involving the inspiration of the bible. Are you willing to say the bible is not the inspired truth of God in order to disprove me?
B.S. I use scripture as well, in fact logic supports and enhances my view of scripture.
Your view of scripture, however, is both disproved by scripture AND logic.
Without logic and understanding, your interpretation of scripture is just fetishistic, illogical mysticism.
If scripture shows God working in us AND us working with God through our obedience yet you
1. ignore the scripture that shows us obeying God
2. use circular reasoning and illogical paradoxes
then you LOSE! Scripture AND logic trumps illogical interpretations of scripture.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/14/2004 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Are you willing to say the bible is not the inspired truth of God in order to disprove me?
LOL, saying scripture is inspired by God won't prove your liar's paradox.
Scripture is inspired by God.
lock's interpretations of scripture are the illogical paradoxes of someone who admits he uses circular reasoning.
How's that?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/14/2004 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Sisters-
Are you claiming that in order to be correct I have to go beyond what is written in the bible?
If that is the case then you win, becasue I will not resort to your level of wordly reasoning.
Wow are you conceited. You think your interpretation of scripture is the ONLY interpretation.
If my interpretation of scripture is more logical than your circular reasoning and liars' paradoxes, then my interpretation of scripture MIGHT be more accurate than yours.
"'Come now and let us REASON together' says the Lord"
All correct logic and reasoning comes from God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/14/2004 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Geisler gives reasons to defend our faith
http://www.ses.edu/journal/need.html
listing Objections to Defending the Faith: Biblical and Extra-Biblical:
quote:
6. The Natural Man Can't Understand Spiritual Truths
Paul insisted that "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God..." (1 Cor. 2:14). They cannot even "know" them. What use, then, is apologetics? In response to this argument against apologetics two things should be observed.
First, Paul does not say that natural persons cannot perceive truth about God, but only that they do not receive (Gk: dekomai, welcome) it. Indeed, Paul emphatically declared that the basic truths about God are "clearly seen" (Rom. 1:20). The problem is not that unbelievers are not aware of God's existence but that they do not want to accept Him because of the moral consequences this would have on their sinful lives.
Second, 1 Cor. 2:14 (NKJV) says they do not "know" (ginosko) which can mean to know by experience. In other words, they know God in their mind (Rom. 1:19-20) but they have not accepted Him in their heart (Rom. 1:18). The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, `There is no God'" (Psa. 14:1).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/14/2004 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
Geisler gives reasons to defend our faith
http://www.ses.edu/journal/need.html
listing Objections to Defending the Faith: Biblical and Extra-Biblical:
quote:
6. The Natural Man Can't Understand Spiritual Truths
Paul insisted that "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God..." (1 Cor. 2:14). They cannot even "know" them. What use, then, is apologetics? In response to this argument against apologetics two things should be observed.
First, Paul does not say that natural persons cannot perceive truth about God, but only that they do not receive (Gk: dekomai, welcome) it. Indeed, Paul emphatically declared that the basic truths about God are "clearly seen" (Rom. 1:20). The problem is not that unbelievers are not aware of God's existence but that they do not want to accept Him because of the moral consequences this would have on their sinful lives.
Second, 1 Cor. 2:14 (NKJV) says they do not "know" (ginosko) which can mean to know by experience. In other words, they know God in their mind (Rom. 1:19-20) but they have not accepted Him in their heart (Rom. 1:18). The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, `There is no God'" (Psa. 14:1).
The whole article is good for those of us who have not abandoned logic and reason for unsubstantiated and false premises, circular reasoning and liars paradoxes. 
Wow, even an anti-OVer like Geisler agrees with me that the reason the natural man cannot receive the truth is because he WILL not receive it.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/15/2004 1:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
I have never claimed to be 100% correct. I have never asked you to believe what I post. I will support my view with scripture. You prefer to support your view with worldly logic.
lock, my views are supported by scripture, by the logical and reasonable exegesis of scripture. Again, it's a conceit to label anyone who disagrees with you as "worldly".
If I show your interpretation of scripture as being illogical and circular and paradoxical, don't throw a hissy fit, you have the opportunity to provide a logical, uncircular, non-paradoxical, coherent interpretation in response.
When you evangelize people who don't accept bible as the word of God, what do you do? Use the bible to prove to them that the bible is the word of God?
By the way, the discussion topic is "Is the OT view really a "logical" view?" and the answer is yes. What we're also showing is how your view is based on the liar's paradox, circular reasoning and a bunch of other contradictions and illogic.
I think part of your problem is that you're a teacher/coach. Teachers and coachs of children usually have no mature feedback of what they teach, the teachers can authoritatively say whatever they want and the kids usually don't try and correct what's said.
Now you try and bring that unhindered style here and it's not flying. We see your circular reasoning and liars paradoxes and speak up. Mister Kotter!
"OKay sweathogs, God forsaw Paul obeying the vision God gave Paul, so God gave Paul the vision since He knew Paul would obey it, after having seen Paul obey the vision that God gave.... because He'd seen Paul obey the vision..... that God had given because He knew Paul would obey it, because He'd seen.........."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/15/2004 3:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
I have never asked you to believe what I post.
So, why post?
There is a question you've dodged, Lock. Why do you believe the scriptures? It feels good? It makes sense? You are compelled? What other possible reasons are there anyways?
I would take the compelled option. The scriptures is full of man's failures. That is one reason I know it wasn't written by men alone, because they would have made themselves look alot better then what they do.
I post my view for you to decide to agree or disagree, if it's logical or not, truth or not. As Sisters is more then happy to point out, I will never convince people to believe what I believe. It is up to God to do that. I do not contend to be correct all of the time. God is still teaching me things everyday, and sometimes He teaches me through my error.
Sisters-
quote:
By the way, the discussion topic is "Is the OT view really a "logical" view?" and the answer is yes. What we're also showing is how your view is based on the liar's paradox, circular reasoning and a bunch of other contradictions and illogic.
When I speak of logic, I mean only that which is found in the bible. If an athiest does not believe me, that is because God has yet to open the scriptures up to them. If He does not open the scriptures up for them, then they will continue to believe it is stupidity. I cannot change that. There are many people who read the scriptures and study them, without God openning up His glorious truths to them, which are hidden behind poor translations. Now if I were to tell you that and you not believe me, that is because God has yet to lead you in that direction or He may never lead you in that direction. That is my belief. You next question would be why does God open the scriptures for you and not others? Because God chooses the stupidity of the world (teacher/coach). If I look stupid because I will only reason from the scriptures alone, then I gladly take the title of stupid. My point is you can gladly agree or disagree. You do not need to turn every discussion into a debate, looking for a winner or a loser. This is not a smear campaign. You do not have to try to make me look bad just to prove your view is correct. Do the readers really need your input to decide if my post is right or wrong, especially since my reasoning is so poor?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/15/2004 4:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
When I speak of logic, I mean only that which is found in the bible. If an athiest does not believe me, that is because God has yet to open the scriptures up to them. If He does not open the scriptures up for them, then they will continue to believe it is stupidity.
So your circular reasoning couldn't be the reason a smart atheist rejected the gospel?
Why has the bible been translated into many languages? Isn't mental comprehension necessary to "believe on the word"?
Romans 10:17
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Hearing it in your language, hearing it in a coherent manner, without circular reasoning and liars paradoxes.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/15/2004 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Lock,
You asked quote:
Whichever way you look at the election in Christ, the bible states that it was determined before times eonian, that Christ would be our Savior. Would this not be proof that God knew that man would sin and be in need of a Savior? If man had never sinned, then what would the reasoning behind having a Savior? What would be the function of the Son?
I would respond by saying that there are Open Theist who believe that when the Trinity decided to create the Godhead knew that sin would be inevitable. The person that comes to mind here is Modesofthought, who used to post alot around here. Here is a post of his from several years ago.
quote:
Posted - 06/27/2001 : 12:32:23 AM Regarding #1, several biblical metaphors suggest reconciliation as the goal of creation:
1. We are Bride of Christ awaiting consumation with the Bridegroom.
2. We as the church are to be one: with each other, with Christ and with God. John 17:20-26.
3. God will eventually be "all in all" 1 Cor. 15:24-28.
There are more but the point is, the reconciliation of all things to God is what I meant, and I'm sticking to it--for now.
Now, for the question of whether God predestined sin and evil:
1. God created this world and is ultimately responsible for the risks that creation entails. This need not be disputed.
2. God knew that creating this sort of world would inevitably lead to the emergence of sin and evil.
3. God does not cause the sin and evil, per se. At this point many like to get out their exacto knives and say it was "inevitable" but not "necessary" that evil and sin emerge. I find this silly really, just admit that God designed this world "for saving" and get on with it.
Here's the question: God said it was good, but good for what? GRACE, thats what.
Now I know that this is not the majority view among OVers, but I did want to say that you can be a OVer and still say that Christ was the elect to reconcile mankind from the beginning of creation.
Peace, Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/15/2004 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
Hey Lock,
You asked quote:
Whichever way you look at the election in Christ, the bible states that it was determined before times eonian, that Christ would be our Savior. Would this not be proof that God knew that man would sin and be in need of a Savior? If man had never sinned, then what would the reasoning behind having a Savior? What would be the function of the Son?
I would respond by saying that there are Open Theist who believe that when the Trinity decided to create the Godhead knew that sin would be inevitable. The person that comes to mind here is Modesofthought, who used to post alot around here. Here is a post of his from several years ago.
quote:
Posted - 06/27/2001 : 12:32:23 AM Regarding #1, several biblical metaphors suggest reconciliation as the goal of creation:
1. We are Bride of Christ awaiting consumation with the Bridegroom.
2. We as the church are to be one: with each other, with Christ and with God. John 17:20-26.
3. God will eventually be "all in all" 1 Cor. 15:24-28.
There are more but the point is, the reconciliation of all things to God is what I meant, and I'm sticking to it--for now.
Now, for the question of whether God predestined sin and evil:
1. God created this world and is ultimately responsible for the risks that creation entails. This need not be disputed.
2. God knew that creating this sort of world would inevitably lead to the emergence of sin and evil.
3. God does not cause the sin and evil, per se. At this point many like to get out their exacto knives and say it was "inevitable" but not "necessary" that evil and sin emerge. I find this silly really, just admit that God designed this world "for saving" and get on with it.
Here's the question: God said it was good, but good for what? GRACE, thats what.
Now I know that this is not the majority view among OVers, but I did want to say that you can be a OVer and still say that Christ was the elect to reconcile mankind from the beginning of creation.
Peace, Ross
Ross,
That is interesting to know. Most of the correspondence I have had on the discussion boards have been with people who believe that God knew that sin was a possibility, but did not expect it to happen. It is good to hear that this is not something all OT-er's agree on.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/17/2004 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
I would take the compelled option. The scriptures is full of man's failures. That is one reason I know it wasn't written by men alone, because they would have made themselves look alot better then what they do.
I'm not sure you understand what compelled means. You said you take the compelled option but you've described the it makes sense option. "That's one reason..." You do realize that this is worldly reason don't you? The same as we've been using? I happen to thing your logic in this case is good. If, like some scholars think, the old testament was just made up after the exile by Jewish priests to give Jews a history and religion, then they could have done a lot better job of inspiring the people by not bashing themselves so much.
The important thing is that even for you the "The Bible is God's word because it says so" line doesn't work. Even you have a (worldly) reason for believing, and that's not a bad thing. I don't think God expects us just to follow the first person we meet who claims to speak with authority. John says to test the spirits, and he says to test them by his own experience of Jesus in the flesh. It's not empty belief. Scary, challenging, nagged by doubt, but not empty.
I am not trying to bash all human logic, just the logic that makes me look bad  .
What is not understood is when I speak of a person's inability to please God, it is due to the weakness of the flesh (sarx). Circumscision is symbolic of the cutting away of the flesh. Our flesh was nailed to the cross with Christ, we are to reckon it as dead, and consider ourselves as resurrected with Jesus, living in the spirit. Until God takes the flesh out of the equation, we are helpless sinners, in need of God's sufficiency. I think that many would agree with this.
Where many disagree with me, is that they believe that this condition of the flesh is due to the "fall". Where as, I believe that the influence of the flesh had a part in Adam and Eve sinning (Gen. 3:6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and the tree was desired to make one wise..."). Here we see the flesh warring against God, influencing Eve's choice to disobey God's command to not eat the fruit.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
| 134 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:17 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|