Posted on 04/30/2010 8:03:48 AM PDT by Quix
I like logic problems like this. :) So, are you saying that they are different because the first does not imply the second? That is, the first leaves room for the possibility that some who are in the body are nevertheless not saved, whereas the second precludes this possibility.
Ah, but isn't there an old hillbilly proverb that says: "Jack Daniels is found in no other bottle, for there is no other bottle under heaven given to men by which we may drink Jack Daniels.”? Kinda puts a different spin on the analogy? :)
Shall I prove to you again, Mark, that your understanding of the Gospels is negligible?
Anyone who thinks Harley was advocating "wit" and "imagination" as requirements to knowing God has clearly not understood his post.
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" -- 1 Peter 3:15
AMEN!
“ALL translations of Scripture have Jesus Christ giving Peter the keys to Heaven”.
Actually...no they do not. A common misreading but a misreading nonetheless.
His effable nature is Holy, and it is not the perfection of one attribute of His nature that makes Him holy. His attributes are mercy, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, beauty,judgment etc.
You have to make them define “body” .
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE.
THX.
THX FOR YOUR KIND REPLY.
Hi FK!Long time no yap!
Yeah. Incidentally I am not commenting (here) on the truth of either proposition. My point is ONLY that “If NOT A then NOT B,” is NOT equivalent to “If A then B.” “If NOT a rectangle then NOT a Square” is NOT Equivalent to “IF a rectangle then a square.”
It was because the initial poster was very, ah, vigorous in attacking what she thought were the errors of logic in the other person’s post that I thought, “Okay, we are doing strict logic, are we? Then let us do it strictly.”
Peter disagreed with you.
Paul's writings are pretty clear to me as well...And conversely, you guys admit that Paul's writings are pretty hard for you to understand...Paul doesn't make much sense...He's insane...
I'd suggest you go back and re-read a little more slowly what Peter wrote
I think if we study the problem any more enthusiastically the room will be spinning.
I THINK I was getting called to account for the notion of Mary as dispenser of Grace because she is the, ahem, dispenser of Jesus [see note below], with a suggestion or, as Art Carney would say, incineration that that must make Mary greater than IHS. So, therefore the question about the ranking of containers and things contained.
[Note: No, I am NOT going to try calling the Ol' Mizris the 'dispenser' of our child.]
It's very significant...But it doesn't say nor mean what you claim it says...In order to understand the scriptures, you have to read the scripture and quit leaving parts of the verses out, or stop putting words into the verses...
You could even take it a little further and claim that Jesus gave Peter Heaven...Or maybe you want to go the other route and claim that Jesus gave Peter the keys to His Jaguar in Heaven...
But what the scripture ACTUALLY says that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the KINGDOM of Heaven...Now why is that significant??? Because the Kingdom of Heaven is NOT Heaven...Just as the Kingdom of God is NOT God...
"effable"? Not playing gotcha, just asking.
Clearly I agree, with possible quibbles around the edges, but I don't think there are any.
To MOI (everybody else's mileage may vary) the critical point is :
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitperson ... and try the veal: it's delicious.Whether the impossibility of God's lying a DISability or lack of some kind.
Objection:It would SEEM to be a disability, because we can imagine situations in which being able to tell a really persuasive lie would seem to be a good, a positive thing.Sed contra: (stop me if you've heard this one before) The psalmist says, He does whatever pleases Him.
I answer that: In God there is no lack, no disability. It is only a manner of loose speech which presents the possibility of doing evil -- in this example of swerving from the truth -- as a positive ability.
And even in our own lives we find that speaking the truth requires knowledge and wisdom, as well courage and other virtues in differing situations. We may think that telling a really plausible lie is a 'gift' or a positive ability -- right up until the day we resolve to try to speak only the truth in love. Then we find that we are, as it were, addicted to putting our own spin on reality.
And this is not even to mention the painstaking task of find out all the lies we tell ourselves to get through the day.
Formally: Man pursues what he thinks to be good. He fails in the pursuit because of failing to know what is good AND because of lacking the strength and purity of will to choose effectively the good.
Reply to the objection: There is no such thing as an existent which is perfectly evil, since existence itself is a good. Similarly there is no perfectly evil act, as such. A particular sin involves faculties and powers which are good in themselves but which are, in the event, misdirected and perverted in their relationship to one another.
Also, reaching ultimate good may involve intermediate steps which appear evil, and the avoidance of which, for the time being, can be accomplished by an evil, like lying.
Therefore a capacity to sin may APPEAR to be an ability, since it involves goods (albeit misdirected and perverted) and seems to lead to goods (temporary evasion, for example, of the consequences of hitting the baseball through Mr. Wilson's window.) But this appearance is illusory.
Therefor the impossibility of God's lying is not a defect but a strength. And therefore it is more precise to say, It is impossible for God to lie," than to say "God cannot lie."
Sounds like we have an Aquinas in the house-:)
Very Nice!
I'm not a scholastic, but I play one on FR.
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
It says *whatever* not *whoever*. It doesn't say that He gave man, any man, the ability to determine who enters heaven or who doesn't.
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.