This is the part where I point out your bad logic, Tiribulus, and then you accuse logic of being a tool of sinful, fallen man and call me insolent for questioning your God.
Just making sure we’re on the same loop here.
“I dont know” is the perfect answer to things you don’t know.
OK, what DO you know?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You wanted a claim from me. Here goes:
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You wanted a claim from me. Here goes:
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Pure chance does not produce patterns, it is mathematically impossible.[/quote]I disagree. It is not mathematically impossible, but is so meaninglessly improbable that it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an infinite, invisible triune being who designed it. In fact almost anything would be more logical and reasonable to believe in than a designer-less, uncreated universe. Geez, the human genome alone makes the very notion laughable. And that’s my best shot at my old Thomistic mindset.
“The race”. Yessir, every one of the elect will win it.[/quote]
Since I am in logic mode that statement is logically incorrect. By very definition only one can win a race. Second, if you are elect, there’s little point in running the race since the winner has been already determined…Just sayin’
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You wanted a claim from me. Here goes:
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]
The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Pure chance does not produce patterns, it is mathematically impossible.[/quote]I disagree. It is not mathematically impossible, but is so meaninglessly improbable that it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an infinite, invisible triune being who designed it. In fact almost anything would be more logical and reasonable to believe in than a designer-less, uncreated universe. Geez, the human genome alone makes the very notion laughable. And that’s my best shot at my old Thomistic mindset.
“The race”. Yessir, every one of the elect will win it.[/quote]
Since I am in logic mode that statement is logically incorrect. By very definition only one can win a race. Second, if you are elect, there’s little point in running the race since the winner has been already determined…Just sayin’[/quote]
BOOM! But, how do we become that person? By being in the body of Christ. And, how do we become the body of Christ, by marrying Jesus. How do we marry Jesus, by being his bride, how are we his bride? By being baptized, and partaking in his life giving sacraments taught by the Catholic Church, his one and only holy bride.
If you’re not running the race then you are not one of the elect.
EDIT: Or you are not yet aware that you are. ALL of the elect will run and ALL will win because that victory was accomplished when Jesus stepped from that grave. It is won for them already and prepared beforehand for them to live in. All that the Father has given Him will come. (and run that race and win"
John 6:35-40
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you’re not running the race then you are not one of the elect.
EDIT: Or you are not yet aware that you are. ALL of the elect will run and ALL will win because that victory was accomplished when Jesus stepped from that grave. It is won for them already and prepared beforehand for them to live in. All that the Father has given Him will come. (and run that race and win"
John 6:35-40
[/quote]
Jesus already ran the race and won. He has forged the race. And you just admitted that we have to do works (we have to run the race). However, we can’t win on our own, and only if we are in the body of Christ.
What I have said is what I’ve been saying all along. That yes, you have to run the race and if the race is being run by you it is because you have already been raised from spiritual death to eternal life, Because Paul said in Romans 9 (we’ll go with the Douay-Rheims) “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” I agree. To be saved, born again, redeemed, ransomed, etc IS to be in the body of Christ.
Listen, works of any kind have nothing to do with one’s standing before God. They do however testify to that standing and powerfully so. Again, it’s like vital signs. No breath? heartbeat? The body is dead. No obedience? No biblical godliness? (no running the race?) The spirit is dead.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]I will defer to him if I’m wrong but that’s the way I read it. I further took it to be a mild snark pointed at you for what he took as you either stating or failing to recognize the painfully obvious. He can also correct me on that if I’m wrong.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What I have said is what I’ve been saying all along. That yes, you have to run the race and if the race is being run by you it is because you have already been raised from spiritual death to eternal life, Because Paul said in Romans 9 (we’ll go with the Douay-Rheims) “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” I agree. To be saved, born again, redeemed, ransomed, etc IS to be in the body of Christ.
Listen, works of any kind have nothing to do with one’s standing before God. They do however testify to that standing and powerfully so. Again, it’s like vital signs. No breath? heartbeat? The body is dead. No obedience? No biblical godliness? (no running the race?) The spirit is dead. [/quote]
The Epistle of James disagrees with you: James 2:14-26 says, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothes and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to his as righteousness’; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by FAITH ALONE. And in same way was not also Ra’hab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
You say “works of any kind have nothing to do with one’s standing before God.”
Scripture asks if Ra’hab, the harlot, was not justified by works? James is the only book that says faith alone or Sola Fide, and it’s right after it says that a man is justified by works.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]I will defer to him if I’m wrong but that’s the way I read it. I further took it to be a mild snark pointed at you for what he took as you either stating or failing to recognize the painfully obvious. He can also correct me on that if I’m wrong.
[/quote]
The old argument, lollercoster obviously the universe isn’t impossible to form by pure chance because it’s already formed. It’s called circular reasoning, he jumped the step of actually proving that it’s not mathematically impossible to form by pure chance by circumventing that if it was impossible why does it exist, well possibly because it is infinitely easy for God to form the universe. It’s logical, but not usually sound. Equivalent of me saying, “God created the Bible, the Bible said God exists, so God exists.” Yeah, it’s logical, but not a very sound argument.
Actually James is saying exactly what I’m saying and a proper exegesis of that whole concept in his book bears that out. It wouldn’t really do any good to conclusively demonstrate that because the church’s authority has already convinced you of the deadly doctrine of maintaining your justification before the spotlessly holy God by your merit so I won’t bore you with anything like what it actually says.
That has always been the Catholic line and you have faithfully held it forth here. Some passage can say “2+2=4”, but along comes the proclamation that “you have no authority to say that!. The one true most holy apostolic church instituted directly by Christ Himself has already told us it equals 5… kinda… unless there is some other convoluted piece of tradition that comes into play in which case it could equal a bunch of other things as well, maybe even including 4, but how it works out in somebody’s life will require the consultation of a canon lawyer who somehow speaks authoritatively on practice and discipline, but not morals or doctrine.”
Your Church is proud. Unfortunately the saving gospel of grace is desecrated and rendered of none effect, but I guess we can’t have everything. Simplicity and purity Chris. Simplicity and purity. It was simple and pure to Paul. His detailed absolute statements of sola fide cannot and are not controverted by James’s teaching on the temporal manifestation of saving grace. It really is simple. A child can understand it. Believe with your heart that Jesus died for your sins and confess with your mouth that he is Lord and you WILL be saved. As a result you also WILL grow in grace and holiness and obedience and your life will be radically transformed for the world to see or you are liar claiming His name. If the world can’t tell you’re different than they are? And not just in your words though they do definitely count, but if they don’t see you as a different specie than they are? Then you ain’t on of His. James is saying in essence that there is no such thing as non working faith.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< The old argument, lollercoster obviously the universe isn’t impossible to form by pure chance because it’s already formed. It’s called circular reasoning, he jumped the step of actually proving that it’s not mathematically impossible to form by pure chance by circumventing that if it was impossible why does it exist, well possibly because it is infinitely easy for God to form the universe. It’s logical, but not usually sound. Equivalent of me saying, “God created the Bible, the Bible said God exists, so God exists.” Yeah, it’s logical, but not a very sound argument.[/quote]The fact of the matter is my dear Christopher that all arguments about anything whatsoever swirl ultimately into incurable circularity if attacked by autonomous reason. Mine included. That was the musing of Calvin in the very first paragraph of his institutes and the liberating truth that had been staring us in the face all along, but definitively set forth by Cornelius Van Til as he meditated and prayed over especially the first of Romans.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You wanted a claim from me. Here goes:
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]
The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]
Yes. If a red ball exists, the claim “No one has ever made a red ball” (lets assume that claim means a red ball cannot exist) is untrue.
If a red ball exists, a series of claims, such as “Only X material can be used to make balls, and X material does not exist in red” (leading necessarily to the conclusion that a red ball cannot exist), then one or more of the claims is wrong.
So, the universe exists. Therefore, one of your claims, which taken together make the universe impossible, is wrong.
If the law of thermodynamics and the A theory of time combine to form a conclusion that the universe cannot exist, one or more of those claims is wrong.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]I will defer to him if I’m wrong but that’s the way I read it. I further took it to be a mild snark pointed at you for what he took as you either stating or failing to recognize the painfully obvious. He can also correct me on that if I’m wrong.
[/quote]
Not a snark at all.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
OK, what DO you know?[/quote]
That it doesn’t make sense to call a God who creates people fully in the knowledge that he will send them to eternal punishment when they die “all loving”.
Just for some clarity for you Tiribulus, because this is an oft misunderstood area of Catholic teaching. On the subject of “merit” I’ll give you a few quotes from the Catholic Catechism, which I imagine you’ve read, but perhaps haven’t ruminated on.
[quote] CC
With regard to God there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man.
The merits of our works are gifts of the divine goodness. Grace has gone before us, now we are given what is due… our merits are God’s gifts.
Man’s merit, moreover itself is due to God…
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification.
The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God.[/quote]
So, in effect what we espouse is not so very different from what you do. We just package it and approach from a different angle than you. You said there is no such thing as a faith that isn’t alive/doesn’t have works and we say the same thing when we say faith requires works. We go further to say that these works are part of our salvation and that they are part of our meriting salvation, but if you look at the above we in effect merit nothing, but rather God gives us Christ’s merit by making us part of Him through the action of grace. You on the other say that you know your faith is real by the outward change it forges in you. It is almost like a chicken and egg sort of thing.
Think about it though… God moves us to turn to Him. We do and then He gives us grace to believe/have faith and do His works, which are our participation in the divine life, but are His free gifts.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
OK, what DO you know?[/quote]
That it doesn’t make sense to call a God who creates people fully in the knowledge that he will send them to eternal punishment when they die “all loving”.[/quote]
Are you fully aware of the blood sacrifices that took place thousands of years ago in the Jewish nation?
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
So, in effect what we espouse is not so very different from what you do. We just package it and approach from a different angle than you.
[/quote]
No, what they believe is very different than what we believe. They believe our acts of charity are worthless, they are menstrual rags before God.