I know it’s a bit past Christmas, but if I had my wish, I would LOVE to see Thunderbolt’s take on this. [/quote]
I appreciate the sentiment, I really do - but I’ve scanned this thread, and there is little of interest to me. If this thread were a person, it’d be the odd love child of a Jehovah’s witness proselytizer and a post-modern academic.[/quote]And a jab from Thunderbolt too. A sarcastic one at that. JW and post modern? Academic? I’m sorry you feel that way, but now at least I know you probably share some version of Aragorn’s disdain for me as well. I don’t know why you couldn’t have addressed me directly though instead of personifying me into this thread.
I was really really hopin to learn more about your assertion of morality being independent of man and your input on foundational thought as well, as Cortes said. The very least academic topic of all. My respect and matching curiosity remain. I hope you change your mind and I’ll never throw it in your face if you do.
You’d rather spend your time bickering and post walls of text instead of responding to this?
You said that the first principle is unprovable. If you can’t prove god exists any and all explanation you have is worthless. [/quote]On the basis of your faith in yourself, that is your own finite AND sinful reason, nothing is proven. You said so. On the basis of faith in the triune God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob absolutely everything stands in objective self evident certainty as testimony to His majesty and might. His signature is on every atom and especially on YOU as His crowning creation in His very image. You do not and will not see that because you are a dead man. That can change. Sound familiar =]
The previous posts are as brief as I can manage.
[/quote]
How do you define “faith in yourself”?
Is your “self” not apparent?[/quote] Last page [quote]Why thank you Cortes. But don’t ya see,(Van Til always said that) this is the absolute core of EVERY discussion, even if only unconsciously assumed, which is usually the case. Not just religious, but philosophical and scientific as well. People everywhere simply meander through life making universal uninterrupted use of a set of intellectual rules without even once ever questioning either their origin or validity. They simply proceed as if it’s a preeminent given that logic governs their reality in such a way that not one coherent thought word or deed would be possible without it.
My contention is… hang on… they’re right!!! With one fatal flaw. By every "religious’ definition there is, they worship logic itself instead of the super-logical God who has created us in is image and in so doing has lent us a finite derivative version of HIS logic.[/quote]You worship logic and your ability to use it in independence from God. Yes, you do. And you do it on the exact same basis and for the exact same reasons, intellectually speaking, that I worship God. This is called idolatry.
And a jab from Thunderbolt too. A sarcastic one at that. JW and post modern? Academic? I’m sorry you feel that way, but now at least I know you probably share some version of Aragorn’s disdain for me as well. I don’t know why you couldn’t have addressed me directly though instead of personifying me into this thread.[/quote]
I wasn’t “personifying” you - I was responding to Cortes.
I’m switching the order for my purposes. I MEAN NO OFFENSE.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:<<< You mistook my statement directly, unless you don’t understand me to begin with. Was Wesley a true Christian or not? Mother Theresa?[/quote]You said “free will reigns” on the very last page. Who’s free will? And what does “reign” mean. If these two together do not constitute the reign of man then please tell me how else to take this apparent slip. [quote]Aragorn wrote:<<< Last but not least, it is a physical and logical impossibility for man to reign with the Christian God existing. An omnipotent, omniscient creator cannot be subverted by tiny finite creatures. >>>[/quote]I could not possibly agree more. Won’t you stick around please? This is the exact topic of this thread. I am not against YOU. I’ll take you at you word for now and accept that this is what you believe in your heart and not that “free will reigns”. Well actually free will does reign for the only one who ultimately has it which is God.
Please? I’m askin nicely. I’ll try n put aside Debbie Blue and some other stuff and I’m askin you to put aside your irritation with me and simply join this discussion. I will make my most heroic attempt ever to watch my attitude. You cannot see my face or hear my voice which is half the problem, but I am being completely sincere. Please?
Once again, I have stated repeatedly that one need not be a professing Calvinist to be a Christian (but it sure helps =] ) I have no idea who are the eternal elect in Christ… none. I treat everybody as if they were because I want them as my brothers and sisters. What I can see is fruit of which behavior is only one type and not even the most reliable. The rich young ruler along with everything Paul wrote taught us this. Jesus said “You shall know them by their fruits for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth SPEAKS”. (Luke 6:45 and Matthew 12:34).
People’s hearts are known by what they SAY as well as what they do though certainly not as God knows the heart which is directly and infallibly. DOCTRINE MATTERS. What someone believes dictates what they think in their heart and that is what makes them what they are. “as a man thinks in his heart, so IS he” (Proverbs 23:7) Spoken advanced communication is a major MAJOR component of the image of God in man. We’re the only other thing in the physical universe that can do it. A person’s speech and life observed in the light of scripture can tell us with high reliability whether they are at present under grace or not. It can NOT tell us whether they will go to heaven or hell as that is the prerogative of the judge and electing God alone.
Does some one have a credible testimony is the question. The Wesley’s did to be sure despite their very unfortunate Arminian theology. I’m not so sure about Mother Theresa. Don’t know. Works do not save us (unless you believe they do?) There are practicing satanists who perform charitable acts. Are they Christians for so doing? I have said this numerous times. It is not possible for me to be certain about anyone’s calling, but my own. Not even my wife’s. I can however be certain someone is NOT saved at the moment. Ephrem is NOT saved for sure. He will tell you himself that even if there were salvation in Christ he does not want it.
That of course says absolutely nothing about his election which we may just not have seen yet. I pray all the time for him by name that that’s the case. why? If God already elected him or not? Because the Lord commands it and it builds love in my heart for Ephrem. I cannot help but love those I pray for. I told him all this a long long time ago when he and Mike had me in their petri dish and it’s still true. Ephrem has been in my prayers for almost a couple years now. I yearn to see my merciful Jesus take him in His arms. He is the triumphant conquering king of the hearts of men and all that the Father has given Him WILL come. They will come willingly, humbly and gratefully with hearts broken over their sin. HE is the author and finisher of our faith. Praise His glorious name.
If I’m already on ignore Aragorn you won’t see any of this. That’s OK. It’s been a blessing to type.
I honestly have no idea how you suck people into these conversations over and over. If I read that autonomous shit one more time, I’ll scream. You make me feel like a fortune teller, because I can see in your future you standing on the corner in some city, cardboard God sign with some message, ranting and raving thru a bull horn.
And a jab from Thunderbolt too. A sarcastic one at that. JW and post modern? Academic? I’m sorry you feel that way, but now at least I know you probably share some version of Aragorn’s disdain for me as well. I don’t know why you couldn’t have addressed me directly though instead of personifying me into this thread.[/quote]
I wasn’t “personifying” you - I was responding to Cortes.[/quote]Listen man I’m not trying to start a fight with you now too lol, but your comment was clearly directed at my person in the guise of characterizing the thread. If I were Lifty you would have said something like “This guy is the quintessential hypocritical manifestation himself of everything he claims to abhor”. (JW’s and post modernism as the examples in your post) That’s Ok. I just wish I could get some input from you BECAUSE you are one of the very sharpest members of this site AND we agree on a lot of other stuff albeit for differing reasons. Come on man. I have to be honest. I just can’t believe that YOU find this topic uninteresting, but I also don’t think you’ve spent much time thinking about it either. Could be wrong. In any case you remain invited forever, but can we at least make the jabs direct please. =] I really don’t mind and even if I did. Tough.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I honestly have no idea how you suck people into these conversations over and over. If I read that autonomous shit one more time, I’ll scream. You make me feel like a fortune teller, because I can see in your future you standing on the corner in some city, cardboard God sign with some message, ranting and raving thru a bull horn. [/quote]That’s what Sloth said!!! What’s happnin homey? Autonomous man, while reveling in his delusion of autonomy, is never too thrilled about having his actual lack of autonomy consciously pointed out to him. Non autonomously of course LOL!
Good to see ya dude.
I just got a call folks. Broken computers (autonomous computers in other words) are awaiting my attention.
EDIT:I fixed it over the phone
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What’s happnin homey? Autonomous man, while reveling in his delusion of autonomy, is never too thrilled about having his actual lack of autonomy consciously pointed out to him. Non autonomously of course LOL![/quote]
I took the time to read this thread, but don’t have the time to read the free will thread. If you could clarify something for me, I would appreciate it:
Do you deny man’s autonomy, or rather free will, due to predestination or some other mechanism WHILE also affirming that God hates some people?
Forgive me if I’m being thick here, but the way you post is extremely difficult to sort through in some places (and that’s coming from someone who has read a lot of philosophy lol).
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:<<< I took the time to read this thread, but don’t have the time to read the free will thread. If you could clarify something for me, I would appreciate it: >>>[/quote]With a polite intro like that how could I refuse. [quote]bigmac73nh wrote:<<< Do you deny man’s autonomy, or rather free will, due to predestination or some other mechanism WHILE also affirming that God hates some people? >>>[/quote]Yes… in a very small ultimate nutshell. [quote]bigmac73nh wrote:<<< Forgive me if I’m being thick here, but the way you post is extremely difficult to sort through in some places (and that’s coming from someone who has read a lot of philosophy lol). [/quote]No forgiveness necessary. I reread my own posts sometimes and see that in my desire to sound brilliant I may have lost some people. I’m workin on it.
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:<<< I took the time to read this thread, but don’t have the time to read the free will thread. If you could clarify something for me, I would appreciate it: >>>[/quote]With a polite intro like that how could I refuse. [quote]bigmac73nh wrote:<<< Do you deny man’s autonomy, or rather free will, due to predestination or some other mechanism WHILE also affirming that God hates some people? >>>[/quote]Yes… in a very small ultimate nutshell. [quote]bigmac73nh wrote:<<< Forgive me if I’m being thick here, but the way you post is extremely difficult to sort through in some places (and that’s coming from someone who has read a lot of philosophy lol). [/quote]No forgiveness necessary. I reread my own posts sometimes and see that in my desire to sound brilliant I may have lost some people. I’m workin on it.
[/quote]
[/quote]I worship at no altar save for Christ’s alone whose flawed, but nonetheless instrument Calvin was. Still waiting for your answers BTW. You do know that Calvinism was the majority view at the founding of this nation right? Here’s an actually good link since we’re posting them n all. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm
My contention is… hang on… they’re right!!! With one fatal flaw. By every "religious’ definition there is, they worship logic itself instead of the super-logical God who has created us in is image and in so doing has lent us a finite derivative version of HIS logic. You worship logic and your ability to use it in independence from God. Yes, you do. And you do it on the exact same basis and for the exact same reasons, intellectually speaking, that I worship God. This is called idolatry.
[/quote]
Circular logic is circular.
How logical is it to dismiss your ability for logic in favor of something you can’t prove to exist yet is somehow “super-logical”?
You deny the validity of everything except the bible and the explanation of it you happen to agree with.
Who explained to bible to you T, and why is this man right?
Is van Til not a flawed man? Using his flawed human logic to explain something that can’t be explained?
How do you know you are not wrong? How do you know for sure?
[quote]Pagans jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.
Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves loudly proclaim what they fallaciously perceive as the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What’s interesting to note is that Sam’s hero, John “the Butcher” Calvin, could not possibly be one of the elect ("by their fruits ye shall know them) and is likely burning in hell as we speak.
[/quote]Could be. I don’t know who the elect are. Only God does. It ain’t about Calvin anyway. He was just a vessel. The gospel would be the gospel if he were never born. The only reason his name is so well known is because he was used so mightily of the Lord to republish the truth of His Word. “God is able to raise up of these stones Children of Abraham” I know about Servetus Push. Please. Calvin and Servetus - Banner of Truth USA
Better get to work condemning the entire Westminster Assembly as well who also saw in the scriptures the same truth Calvin did. Or the 44 of the 55 delegated to the 1st constitutional convention. Or Augustine 1300 years before. Like I say. It ain’t about Calvin so fine. He wasn’t one of the elect for the sake of argument. Jesus Christ died and rose for my sins and redemption. Not John Calvin.