It is one thing to not be able to understand the full mind of God, which I readily admit I cannot comprehend. It is quite another thing to use the mind and reasoning skill God gave man to reject a man-made doctrine such as predestination (at least as the Calvinist proclaims it) that defies basic logical principles than man can readily understand. Is God a God of reason and order or a God of chaos and disorder?
I always find it interesting that Calvinists claim man cannot know the mind of God and at the same time are so adamant that they have a monopoly on understanding the mind of God. Which is it?
Your last comment is a straw man. You are basically stating that because one cannot disprove something, one must accept it as true. This is a logical falacy. BTW, when did you stop beating your mother? You say you never beat your mother. Well prove it.
Your reasoning skills could use a little work.
???????
Perhaps, then, you could explain the logic to me. (Certain segments in church history have rejected the trinity because it is illogical!) I'd like to see how you define it? Are you a modalist?
What about Creating the entire universe out of nothing at all? Is that logical? Or, how could God become his creature (Christ in the incarnation)?
"It is one thing to not be able to understand the full mind of God, which I readily admit I cannot comprehend. It is quite another thing to use the mind and reasoning skill God gave man to reject a man-made doctrine such as predestination (at least as the Calvinist proclaims it) that defies basic logical principles than man can readily understand. Is God a God of reason and order or a God of chaos and disorder?"
If the calvinists are correct, then it is not a man made doctrine. Interesting your use of 'logic' to prove or disprove doctrines. I fully admit that predestination has certain aspects which are not logically consistent (commonly called a paradox), but I fail to see how that makes it necessarily untrue or man-made.
”I always find it interesting that Calvinists claim man cannot know the mind of God and at the same time are so adamant that they have a monopoly on understanding the mind of God. Which is it?”
Well, I'd say your presupposition is wrong. (A true example of the straw-man fallacy) I know of no calvinst who claims to have the monopoly on understanding the mind of God. It is one thing to understand what God, himself, has revealed in the Scriptures (somebody has to be correct -if its not the calvinists, then its someone else.), it is quite another thing to claim to understand the mind of God.
”Your last comment is a straw man. You are basically stating that because one cannot disprove something, one must accept it as true. This is a logical fallacy”.
I think you are getting your terms mixed up. A 'straw man' argument is when you attempt to refute one proposition by arguing against another proposition. For example, someone might attempt to refute calvinism by claiming "calvinist believe 'such and such' (which is not the calvinist postion) and 'such and such' is wrong for xyz reasons." This is quite common when Arminians or other anti-calvinist attempt to refute calvinism by concluding that calvinists deny 'free-will' (they don't) or that calvinists believe 'the logical conclusion' of one aspect of calvinism over another. (For a prime example of this –read John Wesley's sermon on Free Grace. In it you will find Wesley denying time after time what Calvinists profess to believe. Insisting what it is that Calvinists must believe and then refuting that. -classic 'Straw Man'. It also would behoove you to read Whitefields response to Wesley: No, dear Sir, you mistake.) You attempted this with your 'mind of God' question above (as well as the fallacy of the 'False Alternative' –two alternatives are given when there are more than two alternatives possible). Now with respect to your example of beating my wife, that is actually not a 'Straw Man'. That is an attempt to play the ‘I can’t prove a negative’ trick. In reality, you certainly can prove a negative. In my attempt to prove that my dog is not in my bedroom, I can take you to my living room to show you my dog sitting on my couch. I have proved a negative. Now, for practical reasons, your ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ trick might be practically impossible to prove since there has not been a camcorder recording my every move for my entire married life. Nonetheless, it is not theoretically impossible to ‘prove a negative’. That is not a logical fallacy.
No, it seems you are projecting on my question a supposed intention on my behalf to 'prove' calvinsim. That's hardly my objective with this question. It is you who seems to outright deny the calvinist doctrine of predestination because it is illogical. I asked you a question which I honestly wanted to know your answer. In asking this question, I am attempting to identify your concept of the sovereignty of God -not prove my proposition. I fully understand that either answer to my question would in no way 'prove' the calvinist position regarding predestination. I was simply after your conception of the sovereignty of God. I will ask the question again:
C, is God subject to man's logic? Is God bound by logic? Or is God sovereign over absolutely everything -every natural, scientific, mathematical, logical law you can think of? (i.e. because something is not logical to us -creation out of nothing, the trinity- does not make it wrong or false.)
Perhaps you could think of this as a rhetorical question. I'm asking you to think on the issue of the Sovereignty of God. It seems you limit your understanding of Biblical truth by what is logical. When dealing with an omnipotent, sovereign, infinite God, that is not a good idea. If God is sovereign, then he is not 'subject' to any external 'law' or 'power'. (He simply 'is') So, if God is not subject to logic, that means that he created it (for our world, not for his) -otherwise he would not be sovereign, now, would he? So, if God works outside of logic (i.e. Creation out of nothing), then our understanding of Scriptural truth cannot be limited by what is logical. Does this prove the calvinist definition of predestination? By no means, but it seems that your original objection to the calvinist postion -that it is illogical- is null and void.
Jean