Posted on 11/30/2003 5:21:17 PM PST by drstevej
|
|
||
Bruce Nolan: How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God: Welcome to my world.
These sort of statements are logical fallacies.
Alternative A - If true, then your statement is NOT fallible. In which case we are obliged to agree 100% with your statement here (and who knows where else with you or others?) if we are desirous of being one with Truth.
Alternative B - If false, the statement goes up in a puff of smoke, since the falsification of the statement is that we are all infallible, but you just proved yourself fallible by making a false statement.
Alternative C - Objective truth is not knowable, so since it is not possible to determine truth, no one can possibly be called infallible, or alternatively, you could say everyone is infallible in his own perception of the multiplicity of truths.
I assume you reject the relativism of C, and recognize the amendments required by A. The only reasonable statement then would be:
"Calvinists are obliged to agree 100% with any human writer who writes the truth; we're all infallible when we are one with Truth."
Logically from this flow certain consequences:
1) At least sometimes humans are infallible in at least some of their writings and statements.
2) We are obliged as followers of Truth Himself to agree with these infallible statements when made.
3) Objective truths exist and can be perceived by us by which to judge statements so as to determine infallibility. Black is really black, and white is really white, up is up, and down is down. Therefore, there are not multiple truths. Black is not both black and white. Up is not both up and down.
4) Since objective truths exist, it is possible to formulate them into written creeds and definitions descriptive of reality which are objectively verifiable as true and non-contradictory. To thses statements, everyone must agree who wishes to be one with the truth.
5) Every human then needs to make a decision - Creed or Chaos? Recognition of objective truth or doctrinal and moral relativism?
6) It is written that Truth Himself prayed for one man: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." (St. Luke 22.32). It is impossible that this has not come to pass, unless Jesus is not Truth.
7) Truth Himself promised the leaders of His Church:
"And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever: the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you. ... If any one love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him. ... These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." (St. John 14.15-18, 23, 25-26)
It is impossible this has not come to pass unless Jesus is not Truth.
8) Truth also promised to his Apostles: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (St. Matthew 28.20) It is impossible this has not come to pass unless Jesus is not Truth.
So objectively, we can say that Jesus prayed that St. Peter's faith would never fail, and promised the availability and guidance of Himself and the Holy Spirit to His Apostles so long as they abode in Him.
Is not the Holy Ghost guiding the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles? "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20.28)
If the Holy Ghost is guiding the Church, how can it ever be in error? How can its Creed be chaos? How can it not be knowable and recognizable objectively and outwardly?
How could the Church have fallen into error and needed a Calvin to come along and rediscover the truth? Are Christ's words of promise not true? Did Christ and the Holy Spirit leave the Church for some time?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1027410/posts?page=480#480
When I speak the truth, as evidenced by a hermaneutically sound exegesis of a passage, then I speak infallible truth (though I myself am not infallible.)
Heck... correct me if I'm wrong, but the RC church doesn't invest complete infallibility in any man either, does it? Even the Pope, if he isn't speaking ex cathedra isn't infallible?
So it is with Spurgeon -- we disagree with his exegesis of 1Tim. 2:4. The Swarm observes that pas doesn't always mean "all without exception." It's linguistically valid exegesis (I can demonstrate that using Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament)
I don't need to "pretend". Can you find any of the swarm that agree that 1 Timothy 2:4 is a declarative statement concerning all men without exception?
Oh, and btw, thanks for editing my quote without noting your edit. < /sarcasm >
"Are you claiming that 1 Tim 2:14 has no meaning when it comes to the matter of unconditional election..."
1 Timothy 2:4 is not directly concerned with Unconditional Election or Total Depravity. Either way of reading 1 Timothy 2:4 ("all without exception" or "all manner of") can be done without negating Unconditional Election or Total Depravity -as T.U.L.I.P. believing Spurgeon has shown us.
In other words, even though Spurgeon's interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4 differs from other Calvinists, he still is in total agreement with us on:
"...or don't you know that predestination encompasses both Total Depravity and Unconditional Election?"
Predestination also encompases "Limited Atonement", "Irresistable Grace" and "Perseverence of the Saints".
1 Timothy 2:4 is not used to attack "Total Depravity" or "Unconditional Election" as much as it is used to attack "Limited Atonement".
While Spurgeon holds that the "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4 includes "all men without exception", he still unabashadly holds to "Limited Atonement".
"If you can't figure this out, you you have no business on these threads."
Yet you have the ~GALL~ to suggest ~I~ have no business on these threads?
LOL! That's pretty funny!
Jean
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html
The Orthdox theology textbooks describe this confession as being what I as a Catholic would describe as "de fide" and "irreformable".
I was in SF once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I'd try to stall him...detain him...long enough for me to put the film in.
I said, "Don't jump!"
and he turns...you've heard of the 'Elephant Man', he was kinda like that. He had...oh, you could say he had the head of a horse. My heart went out to him.
I said, "Why the long face?"
He said, "Because all my life people have called me mean names..like 'horse's head' or 'flikka', or 'chess piece' or 'trigger'."
I said, "Well, don't worry about it Ed....It can't be that bad."
He said, "My girlfriend is suing me."
I said, "For Palomino?"
He said, "Why was I put on this earth?"
I said, "My friend, any where else and you wouldn't stand a chance!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you, you silly ninny."
He said how do you know there's a God?
I said, "Of course there's a God...Do you think that billions of years ago a bunch of molecules floating around at random could someday have had the sense of humor to make you look like that?"
He said, "I do believe in God."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too."
I said, "Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too...what franchise?"
He said, "Baptist"
I said, "Me, too...Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too...Northern Constervative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too...Northern Conservative Fudamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."
I said, "Me, too...Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too...Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, " Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, Heretic!!
And I pushed him over!"-Emo Philips from E=MO2
Jean
A free will is one that can choose the good. Being able to chose evil is not freedom but slavery to wickedness.
A man without grace does not have a free will for spiritual matters.
Edwin Palmer would disagree with this claim. His book is quite clear that when he talks about predestination, he is limiting it to total depravity and unconditional election.
Do the Hustle...
That's a pretty stupid statement.
That was Charles Spurgeon's Statement, not mine.
I suppose that if I ask you for proof of this with a quote from Palmer that I will get it in the same timely manner in which you have supplied the promised "proof" of your contention that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist".
Oh, wait, that's right...you've never produced any proof (that you promised) whatsoever of your claim that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist".
Furthermore, you've never produced your promised "Saturday Night Special".
And I think you still owe drstevej an explanation in your own words of just how God's love is defined.
Jean
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.