Archive for the ‘ Show yourself Sharp ’ Category

[RazorsKiss] jsrz3away: still want to debate?
* jsrz3away is now known as jsrz3
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I am now — What’s up?
[RazorsKiss] Howdy.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Howdy — Are we gonna fight now?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) If we are, what are those “rules” again?
[RazorsKiss] How would you like to do this? I was thinking something a bit more structured, instead of “toss objections”, as I was saying previously.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I don’t think we need no stinkin’ rules though — Just be honest and you and I will both be fine
[RazorsKiss] Well, here was what I was thinking – I would _prefer_ a debate with a moderator – but barring that, how about we trade off questions, and get a max of 5 posts apiece to answer, and 2 to respond to the other’s answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No rules — If we are going to have a discussion (or, a “debate,” if you prefer to call it that), then let’s do it by being cordial to one another and responding to the question asked and not seeking opportunities to evade the questions asked — Ok?
[RazorsKiss] ie: you ask a questions – I have 5 lines to answer – you get two to respond – and vice versa.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) That sounds like one of these rules for which I don’t feel any need — Let the people here moderate, but it’s you and me — Let’s do this!
[RazorsKiss] I’m perfectly willing to answer anything 😀
[RazorsKiss] Whether you like the answer is another thing 😀
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) That would be another one of those things called “rules” that I believe I just told you I’m not in any mood to have in place when all we are doing here is having a Bible discussion
[RazorsKiss] So – how does the 1-post question, 5-line answer, 2 line response sound?
[RazorsKiss] Because I’d like us to have equal say, and because you take a long time to answer.
[RazorsKiss] I will beat you in volume. I type faster.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I cannot imagine Jesus being asked by anyone to agree to rules before he launched one of his preaching campaigns or engaged anyone in a serious Bible-related discussion, despite the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and all
[RazorsKiss] Ok, I tried.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: proposition to follow
[RazorsKiss] “Is Christ the eternal Creator God, 2nd person of the Trinity?” Yes, or no.
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) No, let’s start with the first one: Provide the book, chapter and verse in Scripture where it says that the Lord Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Trinity?
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) No, he isn’t
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) Next question, please
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) I’ll wait
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: answer – There is no single book, chapter, or verse that explicitly defines the doctrine of the Trinity.
[RazorsKiss] rephrase: no single verse that does so. John an several other books can give a cohesive account be themselves.
[RazorsKiss] *by
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: My question for you – Who is Jesus Christ?
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) Thanks for saying this — So you have decided from reading the Holy Bible, or certain verses in the Holy Bible, that Jesus is the second Person of the Holy Trinity? Is this what you are saying here?
[RazorsKiss] my question, I answered yours – I’ll answer that next, thanks.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Sorry about using your other nick — Who is Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God’s firstborn son, God’s only begotten Son, the man who died on Calvary for the sins of redeemable mankind and was crowned by God with glory and honor and immortality and incorruptibility and who became our Lord and Christ

[RazorsKiss] Doxa isn’t my other nick.
[RazorsKiss] thank you for your answer.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Christ is revealed as the second person of the Trinity by multiple Scripture verses, correct.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my next question – Do you agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching that Christ is (or was) the Archangel Michael?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Yeah, Jesus Christ probably was the Archangel Michael in his prehuman existence before God transferred his life to the womb of His human mother, Mary, and He came to be born and He came to be called “Jesus”
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Next question
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Thank you for your answer.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: your turn.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Sure, np
[RazorsKiss] 😀
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Ok, my question is based on what the apostle John writes about Jesus Christ at Revelation 3:14
[jsrz3] ?kjv rev 3 14
[@pete-] Rev3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; (KJV)
[RazorsKiss] Yes?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, did Jesus Christ have a beginning? (Please don’t look at John 1:1, for that would be cheating)
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, did Jesus Christ have a creator? Yes or no? (Please don’t peek at Proverbs 8:22, for that, too, would be cheating)
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Scripture is capable of being interpreted by other Scripture, of course, and I reserve my right to interpret by it at any time. Howev,er the answer is simple: the word used for “beginning” in the translation you cited is “arche” in the Koine. This word is defined as “that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause”. No, Christ did not have a beginning.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: In fact, the verse is explicitly stating that Christ is the creator of all things.
[RazorsKiss] My question.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Who is the Word in John 1:1?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, when does it say that Jesus Christ was created? (Please don’t peek at Micah 5:2, which would be cheating)
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my question.
[RazorsKiss] I will answer yours next though, thank you.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Let’s review: Question #1 — According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, did Jesus Christ have a beginning? — Your answer is that Jesus didn’t have a beginning — Ok
[RazorsKiss] Actually, my answer was that the verse actually states that He was the Creator.
[RazorsKiss] You have a question waiting for you.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Who is the Word in John 1:1?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #2 — According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, did Jesus Christ have a creator? Yes or no? — You decided to skip this question and not answer it
[RazorsKiss] I will get to your follow up in a moment.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: because you didn’t answer mine in turn.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #3 — According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, when does it say that Jesus Christ was created? — This, too, is a question you decided to skip and elected not to answer — ok
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: that’s two asked, with no answer – I’ll get to them in turn, thank you.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) So wait: You get to ask me more questions and you only have to answer one of the three questions I asked you about Revelation 3:14? That seems a bit unfair, but ok
[RazorsKiss] I’d like you to answer my question before I answer any more, please.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it’s my turn to ask.
[RazorsKiss] or would you like me to ask two more to make it even?
[PatrickSD] it is razors turn
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Sure, you’re right — My bad — It is your turn to ask me more questions — Got it — Go!
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Who is the Word in John 1:1?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) The Word in John 1:1 is the Lord Jesus Christ
[RazorsKiss] Thank you for your answer 😀
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: according to revelation 3:14, Christ was not created – He is the Creator.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Does this mean you are going to answer at least one of the two questions of mine I asked you related to Revelation 3:14 that you elected to skip and not answer now?
[PatrickSD] ^
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: that is in response to #2
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Christ did not have a creator.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Yes, it is and I have so noted — What about Question #3?
[RazorsKiss] ready for another, jsr? I’ll get to your #3 next.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I’m ready — yes
[RazorsKiss] Okay.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: next question – In John 3, it is said of this Word, who we previously defined in verse 1; “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” – Would this not mean that Christ is, in fact, the Creator?
[RazorsKiss] *John 1:3 – correction
[RazorsKiss] *John 1:3 – correction
[RazorsKiss] ?kjv john 1:3
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, this would mean that the Word Jesus (Jesus Christ) was involved in the creation of everything visible and invisible, but not that He alone created all things independent of his Father since it is God that is in possession of all of the power
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thank you for your answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) It is God’s holy spirit that creates, which spirit originates with God and not Jesus
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) What is your answer to my Question #3?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: to answer your #3 question: Revelation 3:14 says nothign about when Christ was created, it does not say that He was created at all, least of all “when”. The greek, as I said, is “arche” – which means “origin of, or cause of”.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it is easily misinterepreted as “beginning”, not “cause” and the kjv has it as such, rendered in English.
[RazorsKiss] My question, it seems.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: next question – did I say that the Word created anything independent of the Father?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) So that’s your answer? That when John wrote about Jesus being “the beginning of the creation of God” that John was referring to something /other than/ the fact that Jesus is a “creation,” someone that had a “beginning” and that “God” created him? Your answer is that Revelation 3:14 “does not say that Jesus was created at all”? That’s it?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my question, but I will answer in a moment, thank you 😀
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thank you for giving me the extra time to prepare the answers, though 😀
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: next question – did I say that the Word created anything independent of the Father?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, you didn’t say that the Word created anything independent of the Father — I believe it was /I/ who made this statement — Is there a problem?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thank you for your answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Is there a problem?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) If not, here’s my next question:
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: yes, my answer is that the word mistranslated as “beginning” in the KJV actually means “origin of, or cause of”. That is a sufficient answer, and easily verifiable by a consultation with a greek concordance/lexicon.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it’s my turn.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) This question is based on what the apostle Paul wrote at Colossians 1:15 about Jesus Christ
[jsrz3] ?kjv col 1 15
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #4 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ born? Yes or no?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #5 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, of whom does Paul say that Jesus Christ was “the firstborn”?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my answer, since you insist on jumping your turn, is that it depends on what is meant by “born”.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #6 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, if Jesus is “the firstborn of every creature,” is it not fair to conclude that Jesus was created by someone? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: for the next one you insist on skipping ahead for, the answer is that the firstborn is God made flesh, thus born – and first by athority, not temporality.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, I don’t insist on jumping my “turn” — I just want to get this discussion moving and I don’t think it’s moving fast enough
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, no — Wait — “God made flesh”? Where in John 1:1 or John 1:3 or Colossians 1:15 or Revelation 3:14 did we read “God made flesh”?
[PatrickSD] out of turn
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: for the third you you insist on skipping ahead for, the answer relies on your preconception of the nature of Christ, in it’s entirety. Seen in a concistent manner, Christ is the eternal God, amde flesh, and the first born in authority.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Do you deny that verse is in Scripture?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Are we having a scriptural discussion where we use book, chapter and verse to prove that what we are saying is supported by Scripture or some free-for-all?
[RazorsKiss] As I said in an earlier answer, I reserve the ability to use any scripture, in any answer.
[RazorsKiss] If you weren’t reading what I said, you should have brought it up then.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: in that case, please offer me book, chapter, verse for your contention that Christ is the archangel Michael.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Have you used “any scripture” at all in any of your answers /besides/ the two scriptures I mentioned, namely, John 1:1 and John 1:3? Did I perhaps miss any others?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: I didn’t need to, as they all relied on simpel misinterpretations of simple terms.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: are you interested in a discussion, or in a monologue?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: As i said, if it’s a speed battle, I’m a much faster typist, and you don’t read very quickly.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thus, it would be in your best interest to preserve the format we’ve been using.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: further, you owe me three answers.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: anythign else you’d like to bring up, while you’re trying to ride the objection-fgo-round, or would you like to stop and go back to the original format?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it was working just fine, until you got upset.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: since it’s been a few minutes since you last typed, I’ll assuem you need a break.
06* RazorsKiss will take a 5 minute recess himself.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: be back in a minute.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: please peruse my earlier questions.
[PatrickSD] he owes you 3 right?
[RazorsKiss] let’s say two.
[PatrickSD] i was counting
[fjmatt] curlyq, your ability to judge others is quite impressive… now please shut up.
[PatrickSD] u sure?
[PatrickSD] i could have sworn i saw 3
06* RazorsKiss shrugs. I’m off for a bit, anyway.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) At Daniel 10:13, it is Michael, described as “one of the chief princes,” that comes to the aid of Daniel, and at Daniel 12:1, it is Michael, “the great prince,” that will “stand up” for God’s people, and at Jude 1:9, it is Michael, who is described by Jude as “the archangel” that contends with the devil in disputing over Moses’ body, who tells the devil, that the Lord God rebuke him
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thank you for your answer. I’ll be back momentarily.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) When did I ever get upset? I can assure you my blood pressure is just as calm and steady as it was when we began
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) As to the time it takes for me to answer any of the questions you might ask, it takes time to find the scriptural citations since I know the book, and maybe even the chapter, where to find them, but not necessarily the specific verse
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) What “earlier questions”? I’ve moved on
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my next question – Wasn’t your objection earlier that a single verse should be used to support a doctrinal stance?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) How do you get to go now? Do you not intend to answer my questions?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: you’ve asked 3 consecutive, which i answered.
[RazorsKiss] I, in fact said that I wouldn’t hold you to more than two.
[RazorsKiss] so, that was the second.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I asked you this one — Question #4 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ born? Yes or no? Your answer was “that it depends on what is meant by “born'”
[RazorsKiss] yes, that was my answer.
[RazorsKiss] which would imply that I intend to ask you that later on.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: I answered all of your questions in quick succession, as a cohesive whole.
[PatrickSD] yes he did^
[RazorsKiss] and the answers for them all, as the questions were obviously intended, were meant to hang together, not separately.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) What does your answer to my Question #4 supposed to mean? You were “born,” which means at one point you didn’t exist — My question to you was this: “According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ /born/? Yes or no? Try again
[RazorsKiss] I don’t answer complex questions with a simple answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Well, I didn’t understand your answer to Question #4 and I need to go back and see how to responded to my Questions #5 and #6
[RazorsKiss] that’s a cheap debating trick, and I ignore it when it occurs.
[RazorsKiss] be my guest 😀
[RazorsKiss] when you return, my second, compared to your three, is waiting 😀
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) What does your answer to my Question #4 mean? Are you telling me that you do not know what the English word “born” means? Are you serious?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: is that another question?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it seems to me you want to ask all the questions, whenever you can.
[PatrickSD] You should stick to the format JSRZ3
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: further, any english word has multipel meanings and definitins, depending on context.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) It’s a “cheap debating trick” that you use to evade and avoid answering someone’s question that you do not wish or choose to answer, so you say things like “that depends upon what the meaning of a particular word is”? Is this the “trick” that you often employ under such circumstances?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: demanding simple answers to complex questions is a cheap debating trick.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: for instance:
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, I want you to answer Question #4 so that a five-year-old would be able to understand your answer — I have numbered my questions that I might reference them when need be — What is your answer to my Question #4? Is it Yes or No?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: 5-year olds don’t typically debate the trinity.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ /born/? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: what bearing does the answer to your other two questiosn have on the concept of “born”?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Please answer the question: According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ /born/? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: define “born”, as used in colossians 1:15
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: here is a clarification of your question that might make this relevant to you.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Does colossians 1:15 state that Christ was the first human ever physically born?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: to take the word “firstborn” as you seem to want to take it would necessitate this understanding of colossians 1:15
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: that Christ was the first huamn being ever born on this planet.
[RazorsKiss] *human
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, Colossians 1:15 doesn’t speak to humans at all, but what about my Question #4? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: then what is the defintion of “firstborn”, as used in Col 1:15?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: given your definition of Christ you gave earlier, your defintion of “firstborn” is going to have bearing on my answer, in your eyes.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thus, i want to now what you are defining “firstborn” as.
[RazorsKiss] *know
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) So according to what we read at Colossians 1:15, you are saying that if the word “firstborn” means what we know the word “firstborn” means in the English language, that Jesus Christ was born? Is this what you are saying?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: 1) It wasn’t written in English. 2) the meaning you’re assigning to it is unclear and 3) you asked that with a purpose in mind of which I’m very aware.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: 4) firstborn has a specific meaning in scripture.
[RazorsKiss] (apart from the physical meaning)
[RazorsKiss] so, once again – Christ is is, indeed, the “firstborn” of all creation. What do you define that as, before I say “yes/no” to what you are defining.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) See how the word “firstborn” is used in the Bible at Exodus 12:29 with reference to humans man and animals, to Pharaoh’s “firstborn” and the “firstborn” of cattle, and this is what I mean when I ask you what according to what we read at Colossians 1:15, if Jesus Christ was “born” — Was Jesus Christ born?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) See how the word “firstborn” is used in the Bible at Exodus 12:29 with reference to humans man and animals, to Pharaoh’s “firstborn” and the “firstborn” of cattle, and this is what I mean when I ask you what according to what we read at Colossians 1:15, if Jesus Christ was “born” — Was Jesus Christ born? Yes or no?
[jsrz3] ?kjv exo 12 29
[@pete-] Exo12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. (KJV)
[Nomos] Ricco, good point. :]
[RazorsKiss] Yes, in that sense, Christ was “born” – however, that is not the sense used in Col 1:15.
[RazorsKiss] Now, I’d like to ask a question, since you’ve been so kind as to ask them all recently?
[RazorsKiss] and I’ve actually answered the ones you’ve asked?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my next question – Wasn’t your objection earlier that a single verse should be used to support a doctrinal stance?
[RazorsKiss] ie: for the trinity?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I think I’m going to wait until you answer my Question #4, k?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: you do know that you’ve asked like 8-9 questiosn without answering one yourself?
[RazorsKiss] and I’ve answeerd them all?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Yes, I’m sure you were good with math when you were in school — I’ve asked you only six questions and numbered each of them
[RazorsKiss] I’ve disagreed with practically every answer you’ve given me, as well – but I’m not kicking my heels every time one of them disagrees with me.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: maybe you’re used to doing all the objections?
[RazorsKiss] how about you just admit I answered your #4.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) This isn’t about you agreeing or disagreeing with my answers — It’s about responding to the questions asked, which you have failed to do, for you would rather ask me other questions instead of answer the ones put to you by me
[RazorsKiss] Question #4 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ born? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] Question #5 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, of whom does Paul say that Jesus Christ was “the firstborn”?
[RazorsKiss] Question #6 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, if Jesus is “the firstborn of every creature,” is it not fair to conclude that Jesus was created by someone? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] A4 – jsrz3: my answer, since you insist on jumping your turn, is that it depends on what is meant by “born”.
[RazorsKiss] A5 – the answer is that the firstborn is God made flesh, thus born – and first by authority, not temporality.
[RazorsKiss] A6 – the answer relies on your preconception of the nature of Christ, in it’s entirety. Seen in a consistent manner, Christ is the eternal God, made flesh, and the first born in authority.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) It doesn’t matter to me whether you agree or disagree with what I believe, because you may not believe what I believe, especially if you believe, as you have already told me, that Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, but cannot provide a /single/ scriptural citation — book, chapter and verse — that supports your statement of belief
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: you haven’t asked me for any.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: the only thing you asked me was for a single verse that taught the Trinity.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: I answered – and followups would be much more profitable, instead of insisting I answer how you want me to answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I think we’re done if you are going to play games about the meaning of words, like you did when we were referring to Hebrews 9:27 and you were then adding the word “all” to “men” and coming up with “all men” in this verse when the word “all” isn’t used in this verse, so “born” and “firstborn” mean what they mean in the English language
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: I believe it’s quite obvious that you aren’t interested in answering questions, just asking them, if that’s what you mean.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: can you give me a single verse, as I asked earlier, that says Michael is Christ?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: you gave me _3_, at once, none of which contained an indentification of Christ with Michael – yet screamed bloody murder when I used a single reference from John 1 in a reply earlier.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: let me ask you – is that consistent?
[Nomos] jsrz3, is Jesus a god like the judges are referred to as gods (baals), or is he god in a different way?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) As a matter of fact, yes, I /do/ believe in multiple gods, since Scripture teaches that Jesus did exist “in the form of God” and was in the likeness of God before he was changed and came to exist “in the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7)
* PipeTobacco ( has joined
[PipeTobacco] yyyyo
[WendyKat] tom cruise says he can save wreck victems better than an emt
[jsrz3] ?kjv phl 2 5 7
[@pete-] Phi2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (KJV)
[@pete-] Phi2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (KJV)
[@pete-] Phi2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (KJV)
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) This means that in His prehuman existence, Jesus was a God just like all of the angels of God are themselves gods, but when Jesus came to earth, He wasn’t an incarnate man, like the many angels that materialized on earth with human bodies like the three that visited Abraham before Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, but, as Philippians 2:7 states, was a “in fashion as a man”
[jsrz3] ?kjv phl 2 7
[@pete-] Phi2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (KJV)
[jsrz3] ?kjv phl 2 8
[@pete-] Phi2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (KJV)
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: that’s not a single verse.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) This means that in His prehuman existence, Jesus was a God just like all of the angels of God are themselves gods, but when Jesus came to earth, He wasn’t an incarnate man, like the many angels that materialized on earth with human bodies like the three that visited Abraham before Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, but, as **Philippians 2:8** states, was a “in fashion as a man”
[RazorsKiss] you’re pulling verses in from all over 😀
[RazorsKiss] isn’t that what you were annoyed at me about earlier?
[RazorsKiss] referencing verses elsewhere?
[RazorsKiss] can’t you prove your case from one verse, as you demanded i do?
[RazorsKiss] I’ve seen multiple verses, from a wide variety of contexts.
[RazorsKiss] It really was in your best interest to stick to the format.
[RazorsKiss] Doing it this way, I can ask/answer 3x as many questions as you can in the same amount of time – which was why I was using it.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: for _your_ benefit.
[RazorsKiss] NOT mine.
[RazorsKiss] further, I was attempting to keep you from going off on unrelated tangents – as you proceeded to do.
[RazorsKiss] as well as contradict yourself – which you did.
[RazorsKiss] anyway, I’m sorry it ended up this way – but that was why I wanted to stick to a format.
[RazorsKiss] because if you don’t – one party gets out-typed.
[RazorsKiss] have a good night – sorry about the ending.
[RazorsKiss] hope that was instructive or helpful to someone in here 😀

Once upon a time, in a wild little channel called , a group of atheists sat there and mocked. For hours. Here’s how it went, including the title story, at the end.

[avalanch_] one does not deal with the irrational undesireables by taking them seriously and trying to argue with them. they refuse to listen to reason afterall.
[avalanch_] thus, much as we ridicule neo-nazi’s, so too must we ridicule theists.
[avalanch_] i can not help being superior.
[glk] Jesus stories do not sound like historical data. All gods are based on faith.
[ridge_`] avalanch_: in the end, it’s the most effective means of dispelling myths.
[avalanch_] ridge: i agree. the more we ridicule theism, the more the smart people will realize theism just isn’t cool and respect-worthy
[RazorsKiss] Prv9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you. (NAS)
[glk] Feel free to correct my facts
[RazorsKiss] avalanch_: the more you show disdain, the more you show condescension, the more it’s apparent what the fruit of your worldview is.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: do you not disdain criminals? do you not disdain the intolerant? the bigoted? have you no disdain for those that are simply less than you?
[avalanch_] no single religion has ever included more than 50% of humans.
[RazorsKiss] Who are the criminals? Who are the intolerant? Who are the bigoted? Who consider others less than themselves?
[RazorsKiss] Those who are consumed by overweening pride.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so, you have no disdain for pedophiles and rapists?
[RazorsKiss] Thus, we can see the fruit of your worldview.
[RazorsKiss] pedophiles and rapists have a disdain for their victims.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: and yet you have no disdain for them?
[RazorsKiss] I’m no better than they are.
[RazorsKiss] Neither are you.
[RazorsKiss] The true problem is that you think you are.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: ofcourse you’re better than they are. as am i. we are not all created equal, no matter what you might think.
[RazorsKiss] I don’t think we were. I think we’re all equally sinful by nature, however.
[glk] I never sin. Sin is violations of a religion rule. I have no religion or god.
[RazorsKiss] And what you disdain, I consider equally created in the image of God, if not identical in giftedness.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so, god created pedophiles? and this is a god you WORSHOP? what is WRONG with you?
[RazorsKiss] No, God created humans.
[RazorsKiss] Humans sin.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: we have no evidence of that whatsoever.
[RazorsKiss] So you’ll assume, yes.
[RazorsKiss] Some sin sexually, some sin intellectually.
[avalanch_] yet all are created equally by your god apparantly
[glk] I never sin. Sin is violations of a religion rule. I have no religion or god.
[RazorsKiss] We are created as humans, yes – and all humans have the image of God in their ability to think, and to act.
[glk] I was born, not created by any gods
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so now *god* is a pedophile?
[glk] Gods are not detected. People invent gods and write holy books.
[glk] There was no Adam, Eve, original sin, talking snake, magic trees, Fall or world flood. Genesis is mythology.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: i’m sorry, i just can not believe in a god that allows such people to exist
[glk] There was no 6 day creation or Noah Flood. Genesis is mythology.
[RazorsKiss] Is equivocation your usual debate tactic?
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Or do you just do that when you lack an argument?
[RazorsKiss] Fallacies don’t become the eminently superior, do they?
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: i think the fact that evil exists in the world is reason enough not to worship god.
[avalanch_] this is hardly a fallacy
[glk] I detect none of the gods, Allah to Zeus.
[RazorsKiss] I think that argument by equivocation is hardly a sound argument.
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Let’s set up your argument as propositions, shall we?
[avalanch_] let’s not.
[RazorsKiss] 1. God created men.
[RazorsKiss] 2. Some men are pedophiles.
[RazorsKiss] 3. God is a pedophile.
Is this a sound argument, avalanch_?
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Or is that a rampant equivocation?
[glk] There is no evidence for a Noah flood
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: 1. god supposedly created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE, 2. some men are rapists.
[glk] No water exists to flood the earth
[RazorsKiss] Define image.
[avalanch_] no, *you* define it. you’re the one who believes it.
[RazorsKiss] Why, you’re the one using it in an argument.
[RazorsKiss] Shouldn’t you be able to define what you’re attacking?
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: nope.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: you’re the one that made the claim god created us in his image. not me.
[glk] No science or history reference agrees with your stories.
[RazorsKiss] Well, I thought you were interested in a rational discussion – it seems I was mistaken.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: rational? with someone like you? surely you jest.
[RazorsKiss] Given that your first attempt at a “rational” argument was a demonstrable fallacy, I really find the accusation amusing.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: what on earth makes you think i was trying to hold a rational debate with you? you deserve nothing but my ridicule.
[glk] Gods do nothing
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: if i was trying to hold a rational debate, i certainly wouldn’t do it here.
[RazorsKiss] heh.
[RazorsKiss] then come over to .
[avalanch_] i’d rather not. they’re as irrational over there as they are here.
[glk] I am old and very wise.
[RazorsKiss] oh… so what you’re saying is, you assume irrationality a priori.
[RazorsKiss] Right, well. That’s certainly… rational.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: anyone who believes in a magic skydaddy can’t possibly be very rational on the subject.
[ridge_`] avalanch_: again, ridicule debate works best. Do not stray from the system.
[RazorsKiss] yes, that’s certainly showing the massive depth and weight of your argumentation 😀
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: again, you are under the mistaken impression that i’m trying to hold a rational debate here.
[RazorsKiss] create a strawman… call it names… then dismiss it.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: don’t project.
[avalanch_] ridge: i concur.
[avalanch_] ridge: unfortunately they seem to mistake my mockery for attempts at rational arguments.
[avalanch_] ridge: which only serves to further heighten my amusement at ridiculing them
[RazorsKiss] or, perhaps, it’s all you’re capable of?
[ridge_`] You expect too much.
[avalanch_] ridge: well i do have standards.
[RazorsKiss] We could turn it around.
[RazorsKiss] Let’s say there’s a group that believe in random uniformity.
[RazorsKiss] That everything random is random in a uniform manner.
[RazorsKiss] Always random, just the same.
[RazorsKiss] These folks all assume that everything happens the same way.
[RazorsKiss] But that it all happens randomly, of course.
[RazorsKiss] And that this uniform randomness somehow gave rise to order.
[RazorsKiss] This uniform randomness is governed by something called entropy.
[RazorsKiss] This entropy ensures that things stay orderly.
[RazorsKiss] Because, after all, there has to be a reason for a magic boom.
[RazorsKiss] That magic boom created something from nothing!
[RazorsKiss] The nothing, which became something, had no reason for being something.
[RazorsKiss] But, because it was something, it couldn’t reasonably just stay nothing.
[RazorsKiss] It had to expand.
[RazorsKiss] In an orderly fashion, of course.
[RazorsKiss] Because entropy said so.
[RazorsKiss] This entropic order which expanded the nothingness into something, with it’s random uniformity, decided, in a randomly uniform whim, to start becoming things.
[RazorsKiss] Those things were obeying laws.
[RazorsKiss] Those laws are immaterial things with no origin, and no reason, that mysteriously ignore quite seriously, any attempt at reason.
[glk] The laws came from the big bang
[RazorsKiss] It’s quite a mystery, in a completely rational universe.
[RazorsKiss] Of course, this rationality has no origin, and it governs everything – sensibly, of course.
[RazorsKiss] For no reason, with eminently reasonable guidelines.
[RazorsKiss] Now, all of this something, which came from nothing, and is orderly in it’s obedience to entropy
[RazorsKiss] In it’s eminent reasonableness, decided to become orderly matter – which random caromed around the universe.
[glk] Laws made the order, like electricity and gravity
[glk] Solar systems for naturally
[RazorsKiss] Sure, glk – it’s lawfully obeying entropy in an orderly fashion.
[RazorsKiss] Everyone knows that, after all.
[RazorsKiss] They teach it in schools!
[RazorsKiss] So, anyway, where was I?
[RazorsKiss] Oh, yes. Orderly matter.
[RazorsKiss] Blindly obeying the random laws of nothing in particular, for no reason whatsoever.
[glk] You obey the blind laws of nature
[RazorsKiss] Right.
[RazorsKiss] So. This matter spends a long time – which is our new hero!
[RazorsKiss] And this time doesn’t obey random chance. oh, no.
[RazorsKiss] It has a goal! Entropy set it into motion, and it’s function is to overcome the evil forces of entropy
[RazorsKiss] Doesn’t that make it all better?
[RazorsKiss] So, our hero, time, spends… billions of years. Doing not a whole lot.
[RazorsKiss] Just blindly ticking.
[glk] The earth is 4.57 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
[RazorsKiss] Watching atoms spin around.
[RazorsKiss] It’s great fun.
[RazorsKiss] If time could have fun, and was anything but a deus ex machina.
[RazorsKiss] But, all assumptions have a deus ex machina – and time is ours!
[RazorsKiss] So, time does all sorts of incalculable things over countless eons…
[RazorsKiss] (because, duh – there was no one to count them?)
[RazorsKiss] And then we magically have a planet, built completely out of popsicle sticks and paper mache.
[avalanch_] i don’t think you understand how gravity works.
[glk] Over 300 other planets are observed
[RazorsKiss] And a big fireball, formed out of time’s massive boredom.
[avalanch_] but that’s okay. you’re oberying it anyway
[RazorsKiss] But then time realized that was all a dumb idea
[RazorsKiss] And went back to the original mindless plan
[RazorsKiss] Of spending forever, waiting for something to happen
[RazorsKiss] Well, all sorts of things happened, as far as is assumed – because noone was there to observe it
[RazorsKiss] And then there was a planet – and it was all due to chance and time.
but chance wasn’t really the hero. Time was.
[avalanch_] no, it was thanks to gravity actually
[glk] They can look back in time close to the big bang
[RazorsKiss] yeah, I guess all of those immaterial, and inexplicable magic laws had a bit to do with it.
[avalanch_] how did god? same fricking problem
[RazorsKiss] But we can’t go spoiling time’s heroic epic, can we?
[glk] it was the origin of space time matter and energy
[RazorsKiss] This is about TIME!
[RazorsKiss] Not about some silly laws that have no explanation from a naturalistic perspective!
[glk] The origin of the big bang is unknown
[RazorsKiss] We can’t go yammering on about some bunch of laws that just exist, can we?
[avalanch_] glk: m-model dude. M MODEL!
[avalanch_] ofcourse we can
[RazorsKiss] And the magic explosion is NOT CRITICAL
[RazorsKiss] Time, as everyone knows, is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of it all.
[avalanch_] it’s not an explosion.
[RazorsKiss] Don’t interrupt me, I’m mocking.
[avalanch_] *that* is mocking?
[RazorsKiss]Are you seriously expecting this to be a rational debate?
[avalanch_] don’t be preposterous.
[RazorsKiss] I can’t believe you could be so stupid as to think this was all about you.
[RazorsKiss] I mean really.
[RazorsKiss] Does the world revolve around you?
[RazorsKiss] Are you some sort of flat-earther? get real. I’m mocking here.
[RazorsKiss] Don’t confuse yourself – people are trying to mock.
[RazorsKiss] And mocking is key to the success of your time here.
[RazorsKiss] Remember that – it’s critical.
[RazorsKiss] So, anyway.
[RazorsKiss] The heroic time, and his bumbling, blinded sidekick, random chance
go reeling through history, screwing everything up, according to entropy’s orders
[RazorsKiss] And, automagically – because we assume this a priori – we couldn’t be telling this story otherwise, could we?
[RazorsKiss] Some rocks turn into magical pre-life amino acids
[RazorsKiss] It’s quite a loving sight
[glk] That is part of the mystery
[avalanch_] i wouldn’t call them magical.
[glk] Amino acids form naturally
[RazorsKiss] The heroes watching the mysterious, magical amino acids… gurgling
[RazorsKiss] Just… doing whatever magical things amino acids do.
[glk] Carbon meteorites contain amino acids
[RazorsKiss] And then, after about a billion years of staring
[RazorsKiss] They’re living organisms!
[ridge_`] We should have the science and knowledge NOW, what we’ll have in 200 yrs from now, if not for that blasted magic stratosphere man.
[RazorsKiss] It’s really an unremarkable thing, because, after all, no one’s around to remark
and no one will care for a billion or two more years
[avalanch_] ridge: hell, if the ancient greek civilization had continued, we could have been living on mars for centuries now
[RazorsKiss] Not that caring has any possible significance, even to modern descendants of those amino acids
[RazorsKiss] But, we digress!
[ridge_`] Time to crush this thing once and for all. But HOW?
[avalanch_] ridge: nanophage
[ridge_`] Facts do no good.
[RazorsKiss] And time, being a bit of a patient type, keeps enduring random chance’s bumbling lack of progress
[avalanch_] ridge: i’m telling you, nanophage. just a little mass genocide.
[RazorsKiss] But, entropy, with it’s constant need to tear things down
[RazorsKiss] Manages to form complex living creatures
[RazorsKiss] And random chance is mighty put out.
[RazorsKiss] Let me tell ya. he was still enjoying watching the amino acids, and now he has to try to screw something ELSE up.
[RazorsKiss] Entropy was seriously falling down on the job, you know?
[RazorsKiss] And random chance just wasn’t going to take this lying down.
[glk] The Stanley-Miller experiment produced amino acids from simple gas mixtures
[RazorsKiss] All of this added complexity just wasn’t working for him.
[RazorsKiss] See, it made more work for random chance
[RazorsKiss] And who wants more work?
[RazorsKiss] But time was inexorable
[RazorsKiss] You know him – he stops for no… complex organism
[RazorsKiss] I think I’ll stop story time for now – tune in next time for “random chance: multiplied unimaginably, and still unable to stop unlikely mutation!”
~The End

As usual, it’s been forever

Since I posted anything. Why? Well… I got a contract job that involved a LOT of driving, then I was encouraged to do a class on church history and apologetics, so I’ve been studying like mad, and then there’s also been the fact that i went camping the weekend before last, and I’m doing some remodeling work. I’ve been busy.

I’ve been listening to a really crazy amount of stuff lately. Over 125 hours of church/theological history lectures, from Dr. James White and Dr. Kurt Daniel, a LOT of Piper sermons (including some truly awesome ones on Andrew Fuller and Athanasius), and just… stuff. Lots of stuff.

Oh, and I have some pretty heavy reading coming my way soon, so I don’t expect to get out of my blogging rut, soon. By His Grace and For His Glory, Always Ready, Scripture Alone, and The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

So, between that and the rest of the stuff I have going on – might be a big sparse around here.

John Loftus recently got his second youtube video debunked on the Dividing Line, on 6/12. Ironic, considering the title of his blog.

His response leaves me scratching my head. First, the fact that he responds to practically nothing that Dr. White had to say about his video. Secondly, that he still shows an obvious lack of understanding of where he errs in his understanding of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, and doesn’t address any of it, in his response. Third, that he believes he is so important that Dr. White would remember mentioning him in passing, in a single blog post, over 2 years ago – in error, in fact, because the post he was commenting on was not even written by Mr. Loftus. Additionally, he mentions Mr. Loftus’ blog in a comment concerning one of the other posters, shortly thereafter.

He begins (after a short one sentence summary of Dr. White’s discussion of his video) with this statement.

Let me ask White if he knows his own theology.

I wonder. Is Mr. Loftus aware that Dr. White wrote a book called “The Forgotten Trinity”, as his Th.M Thesis? I have this book on my shelf, actually. Further, I truly wonder if Mr. Loftus is aware that Dr. White has formally debated on The Trinity specifically, and twice on the deity of Christ? Not to mention his lecture(s) on the subject, which can easily be obtained from his website.

Along with his obvious ignorance of basic creedal statements concerning the Trinity, his choice of “Christian” examples is also quite illuminating. Swinburne? His explanation of the Trinity is decidedly non-orthodox. Why is he trying to pass him off as mainstream in any way, shape or form? Especially considering that Swinburne is Eastern Orthodox by affiliation, and Loftus is replying to a Calvinist! Swinburne goes so far as to say: “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods”. This is directly contrary to any orthodox creed of any sort!

But let me explain what I said. Let’s see if I’m as ignorant as he claims that I am. I think he is the one exhibiting some ignorance about Christian theology.

At this point, it may be useful to actually explore an orthodox explanation of the Trinity.

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith.
One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

~ Tha Athanasian Creed

Swinburne is not orthodox, of course. Loftus isn’t even in the same time zone with orthodoxy, according to his explanation of his knowledge of the Trinity. This, from a man who graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School! Did he not listen, I wonder? I really cannot imagine that he never heard an explanation of the Trinity from Dr. Craig, who he so often mentions as his mentor, of some sort. He also claims to have taught philosophy and apologetics. He did this, without even a basic understanding of what the Trinity is?

Richard Swinburne argues for the Nicene subordination doctrine of the Trinity. [Richard Swinburne, “Could There Be More Than One God? Faith and Philosophy 5, no. 3 (July 1988): 225–41. Reformed thinkers like John Calvin and Benjamin Warfield argued for Trinitarian autotheos, in that the Son and the Spirit do not derive their being from the Father but are God in and of themselves.

That’s all very nice – but Swinburne, when he says that God is 3 Gods, has, at that point, nothing to do with Nicene theology. Period. He certainly cannot profess the Athanasian creed, that we saw above. So, why is Loftus even mentioning this man? Two words. Red Herring.

Swinburne claims that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God, who “proceeds” from the first God, but that there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” Swinburne’s view is but one form of the “social Trinitarian model” of the Trinity.

There’s so much wrong with Swinburne at this point, that I’m really confessing – why are we even discussing Swinburne, as if he is relevant to Christianity? I’m sorry, but heresy on this basic level does not have any place in Christianity. Once again, why did he bring him up? Red Herring, perhaps? Distract, by showing us a heretical view, that obviously has nothing to do with orthodoxy, then slip in the punch line, after a bit of time.

I don’t think any account of the Trinity is plausible for the Christian, and that includes Swinburne’s understanding. I find Swinburne’s scenario wildly implausible and guided more by what he thinks the Bible says than by any philosophical reasoning.

Ah, there we go. Ok, so – he admits, finally, that Swinburne has nothing to do with a Biblical account of the Trinity. I’m still failing to see it’s relevance – and especially in the light of the fact that he has yet to shed any light on Dr. White’s supposed ignorance on the topic. His conception is, indeed, fantastical, and bears no relation to Biblical teaching on the nature and essence of God. So, notwithstanding the bolded claim above – does he, in fact, understand the single orthodox understanding of the Trinity?

The bottom line is that no matter how an orthodox triune God is conceived, this is not a simple being.

Of course not. This is GOD.

So, what is the logical next step? Perhaps, present the correct view of the Trinity? Nope.

Social trinitarianism stresses the diversity of persons within the Trinity, while anti–social trinitarianism stresses the unity of the God.

We go, once again, to a claim of universal orthodoxy by some.. wacky ideas. Barthian Neo-orthodoxy, being championed as actual orthodoxy? Why? Because we can score points that way. That’s why.

Barthian/EO ideas about Trinity are exceedingly laughable, considering that Barth was a rank heretic, and the mysticism of the EO church can hide any sort of wanton heresy, if it is explained as a “mystery”. Tell me I’m wrong. Does Mr. Loftus really think he’s fooling us? I’m quite sure he can fool people who want any reason to believe Christianity is false – but it may be helpful to listen to Christianity’s self-definitions, before he runs too far ahead of himself.

Now, his basic misunderstandings in the video Dr. White examined are rather incredible. No less incredible is his willingness to trot out obvious trinitarian heresies. Why does he do this? I’m purely baffled by his statements on this issue. I’m forced to concede that he is either incredibly ignorant of orthodoxy concerning the trinity, unwilling to consider historic orthodoxy as validly Christian, or purely dishonest. Given his continual harping on his experience under William Lane Craig, we are left with little recourse than to say that it is more likely that he is being dishonest. Let me explain why.

If he studied under Craig, he would know what an orthodox construction of the Trinity is, and not the garbled hash he presented to his video audience. Thus, as he is deliberately misrepresenting the orthodox trinitarian position, he is being grossly dishonest, purely for points. This is further demonstrated by his list of qualifications, including claims that he has taught apologetics, philosophy, and theology.

If he is ignorant, it is despite all of this theological training, personal mentorship, and personal experience as a pastor. Despite his mentorship by William Lane Craig. What this suggests is these possibilities:
1. He was deliberately hardened, and did not understand what he was taught for that reason.
2. He just didn’t pay attention in class.
3. He is suppressing the truth, in unrighteousness, and doesn’t realize what he is doing.

Perhaps all 3. Regardless, this is not what he was taught, given where he went to school, and who he was taught by. So, it has to be an endemic ignorance!

If he is unwilling to consider historic orthodoxy as valid, I’m forced to wonder why he continually refers to historic creeds and the like. We aren’t talking about something arcane, or something Christians disagree about. This is something that is definitional to Christianity, not something that is a take it or leave it. If someone does not confess the Trinity, they are not Christian. Point-blank, period. So, why then, are we even trying to state that people who deny the Trinity are even relevant to any discussion of Christianity? Orthodoxy concerning the Trinity is foundational, not optional. So, when we are speaking of Anti-social Trinitarianism, or Social Trinitarianism, why are we even pretending that this is relevant to orthodoxy? If we are ignoring orthodoxy, and only discussing modernist neo-orthodoxy – why are we even pretending to talk about Christianity? Does he understand that such neo-orthodoxy has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity? Perhaps we’re once again intruding into ignorance – the previous explanation.

Let Christians define Christianity. Further, let the Bible define Christianity. Not John Loftus. Especially since John Loftus cannot correctly define the Trinity.

“Social trinitarianism threatens to veer into tritheism (three gods); anti–social trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into unitarianism (one God with no distinct persons in the Godhead).”

Why do we have no mention of orthodox Trinitarianism? Does he know what it is? Not according to his video explanation!

“Each person is not to be considered God, only the whole”. Really? Let’s back up to the Athanasian creed.

“Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.”

So: Not only are each of the persons God – but, the whole is also God. Does Mr. Loftus know the orthodox explanation for this? He doesn’t seem to.

Dr. White certainly gives that explanation, to follow. Does Mr. Loftus interact with this correction? Not in the slightest. Instead, he goes into Social/Anti-Social trinitarianism. What does this have to do with orthodoxy? These two beliefs are not orthodox. In fact, Mr. Loftus’ understanding is far from orthodox. Has he ever read the Athanasian creed? The Nicene? It’s not apparent from his statement!

SOME Christians? I agree with Dr. White. This is definitional. You can’t deny the Trinity’s self-existence from eternity, and call yourself Christian.

Notwithstanding the mispronunciation of “Occam”, he behaves as if the very concept of “uncaused eternality” is an idea that has never had an argument advanced for it, throughout history. Not only that, his argument is a simple argument from incredulity. Last I checked, that was a simple fallacy. Further, he acts as if the concept of an uncreated God, let alone the two-millenia old doctrine of God, concerning the Trinity, is something new and “incredible”. However, as Dr. White points out – there is no definition of “person” made by Mr. Loftus in his discussion of God. What I find interesting is his assertion, in the comments of his blog reply, that Dr. White “(u)sing words like “person” or “hypostatic union” without a precise definition of them means nothing.” Is that so? Tell us, Mr. Loftus. Whose video was he critiquing, and how did the subject come up? Dr. White is a published author on the doctrine of the Trinity. His discussion of common misconceptions of the word “person”, when applied to God, can be found on page 25-26.

“Words often carry with them ‘baggage’ that has become attached to the meaning of a word. The way we use the word may cause us to conjure up particular mental images every time we hear it. The most glaring example of this is the word ‘person,’ a word that is often used when discussing the Trinity. When we use the word ‘person,’ we attach to it all sorts of ‘baggage’ that comes from our own personal experiences. We think of a physical body, an individual, separate from everyone else. We think of a spatial location, physical attributes like height, weight, age—all things associated with our common use of the word ‘person.’ When we use this word to describe a divine person (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit), we tend to drag along with it the ‘baggage’ that comes from our common use of the term in everyday life. Many people, upon hearing the word ‘person’ used of the Father, for example, conjure up an image of a kind of old grandfatherly figure who is the ‘person’ of the Father. He’s separate, different, limited—everything we think of when we think of the term ‘person.’ It will be our task (and it is a difficult one!) to labor to separate such ‘baggage’ from our thinking and use such terms in very specific, limited ways so as to avoid unneeded confusion.”

I really think Mr. Loftus is the one laboring under a misconception, here. It is not Dr. White who misunderstands the doctrien of the Trinity. It is Mr. Loftus. Further, he is the one who has begun to delve into a discussion on the topic without any definition of terms, or exploration of the topic in historic orthodoxy. You would imagine he had received this training in the past – I myself have studied this doctrine, to some extent, as have most orthodox Christians. Not all understand it completely, but what they do understand MUST be orthodox. To worship God in Spirit, and in TRUTH, you must have a proper conception of what you worship.

Let’s delve into Dr. White’s definition of terms, concerning the Trinity. (pg. 26ff)

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

First, the doctrine rests completely on the truth of the first clause: there is only one God. “The one Being that is God” carries within it a tremendous amount of information. It not only asserts that there is only one God – the historic belief, shared by Christians and Jews known as monotheism– but it also insists that God’s “Being” (capitalized so as to contrast it with the term “persons” found in the next clause) is one unique, undivided, indivisible.

Second, the definition insists that there are three divine persons. Note immediately that we are not saying there are three Beings that are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be self-contradictory. I emphasize this because, most often, this is the misrepresentation of the doctrine that is commonly found in the literature of various religions that deny the Trinity. The second clause speaks of three divine persons, not three divine beings. As I warned before, we must not succumb to the temptation to read the term “person” as if we are talking about finite, self-contained human beings. What “person” means when we speak of the Trinity is quite different than when we speak of creatures such as ourselves. These divine persons are identified in the last clause as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, we are told that the relationship among these divine persons is eternal. They have eternally existed in this unique relationship. Each of the persons is said to be eternal, each is said to be coequal with the others as to their divine nature. Each fully shares one Being that is God. The Father is not 1/3 of God, the Son 1/3 of God, the Spirit 1/3 of God. Each is fully God, coequal with the others, and that eternally. There was never a time when the Father was not the Father; never a tiem when the Son was not the Son; never a time when the Spirit was not the Spirit. Their relationship is eternal, not in the sense of having been for a long time, but existing, in fact, outside the realm of time itself.

The three foundations of the Trinity, then, are already clearly visible. Here they are:

Foundation One: Monotheism: There is Only One God
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons
Foundation Three: The Persons are Coequal and Eternal

That’s in Chapter 2: What Is The Trinity?

In Chapter 11, we find: Three Persons. I won’t go into a detailed quote from this chapter – but He discusses all of the individual characteristics of these three persons, in detail.

In Chapter 12: A Closer Look, Dr. White lists Louis Berkhof’s definition, from his Systematic Theology.

1. There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia).
2. In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the Divine Being is marked by a certain definite order.
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished .
6. The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

After stating this, he goes into further detail, on each one of these points. I would encourage Mr. Loftus to purchase this book, The Forgotten Trinity, study it, and thereby gain an understanding of which he speaks. Dr. White is not confused, as to his theology of God, or on the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is eminently orthodox, very concise, and I am purely baffled at the claim of Mr. Loftus that Dr. White has no understanding of the subject. Again, he is the author of a book explaining the subject – and he does so in an extremely concise and understandable manner, that no orthodox Christian will have any problem in endorsing. it is, in fact, endorsed by Norman Geisler (an opponent of long standing concerning other issues), Dr. J.I. Packer (a theologian who has much experience writing about the Doctrine of God), Dr. Gleason Archer, Fr. Mitchell Pacwa (a Catholic debate opponent), Kerry D. McRoberts, and Dr. John MacArthur. This is no novice, and the book is entirely sound in doctrine.

What possible grounds does Mr. Loftus have for his skepticism concerning Dr. White’s understanding of the subject?

…that’s one of the reasons I asked White if he understands what he believes. Using words like “person” or “hypostatic union” without a precise definition of them means nothing.

See, that’s the thing. Dr. White is speaking from the perspective of a published author, with a very extensive body of work outside of that, as well. Plus, it’s work in the very subject Mr. Loftus is accusing him of ignorance in. If Mr. Loftus, as is apparently the case, is ignorant of Dr. White’s extensive treatment of the subject, I’m hard-pressed to be sympathetic about his own complete misunderstanding of the subject he is addressing.

I’m with Dr. White. What does “eternally created” even mean? Just a basic overview of the Nicene or Athanasian creeds will disabuse you of that notion. Further – I’ll return once again to his claim that Dr. White “failed to define terms”. Does he not understand that Dr. White is critiquing HIS video? Is it that difficult to see that his own failure to define any sort of terms is the source of most of his confusion?

The single greatest reason people struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity is miscommunication. It is very rare that anyone actually argues or debates about the real doctrine of the Trinity. Most arguments that take place at the door, or over coffee, or at the workplace involve two or more people fighting vigorously over two or more misrepresentations of the doctrine itself. it is basic to human communication to define terms. Yet so many people have so much emotional energy invested in the Trinity that they often skip right past the “definitions” stage and charge into the “tooth and claw” stage.

When it comes to the central affirmation of the triune nature of God, most of the time we leap right past the “formalities” and directly into a tug-of-war with passages of Scripture. The result is almost always the same: both sides go away thinking the other side is utterly blind. Such frustrating experiences could be minimized if we remember that we cannot assume that the other person shares our knowledge or understanding of the specifics of the doctrine under discussion.

~ The Forgotten Trinity, pgs 23-24

I would submit that perhaps Mr. Loftus’ knowledge of the doctrine in question is not as complete as he’d like to think.

“Massive confusion”, indeed. Created?

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Remember that, from above?

See, here’s where Mr. Loftus gets a bit annoyed. Dr. White corrected him over several things. I don’t think his usage of the word “logos” was in question. It was the manner of usage. Mr. Loftus says “also known as ‘logos'”. As Dr. White points out – “logos” is only a descriptor. Not a title. The second person of the Trinity is first and foremost, the Son. Perhaps He would be, in a much lesser sense, also known as “logos” – but the choice of this term was strange, in the manner he used it in.

Further, his discussion of the supposed “incoherence” of the Incarnation was… not very convincing or coherent, in it’s own right? I mean, when you post a link to your supposed discussion of the Incarnation, in the blog post that is supposedly an exhortation that your opponent is ignorant of what he HIMSELF believes, and even this is completely ignorant of the orthodox understanding of THAT doctrine, I find it hard to believe any accusations of ignorance against anyone else have any credence whatsoever. At least not from them. Mr. Loftus, despite his claims, has obviously not understood what he was taught.

Now keep in mind that the God-man Jesus was a fully human being, so any resurrected God-man must have a body in keeping with his humanity, otherwise the human part of the God-man ceased to exist, died, or his was simply discarded. But it can’t be that God would destroy a sinless man, the man Jesus. Therefore, the resurrected Jesus, being a God-man, is a new and unique being, and this dual natured being is unlike the previous 2nd person of the Trinity.

Now, such a lack of understanding is truly indicative of the level of argumentation he has to offer. Honestly, Dr. White has better things to do than refute this level of… misunderstanding. As he often says, concerning Islam – if you want to show the truthfulness of your own view, it’s helpful to at least make an effort to accurately represent the beliefs of your opponents. If you show no interest in truthfulness concerning their views, you have shown, in essence, that you have no concern with it, ultimately, concerning your own.

Advice I wish Mr. Loftus would take. Especially when his sole claim to fame is that he was taught by the famous William Lane Craig.

This clip shows, very clearly, the depth of Mr. Loftus’ confusion, concerning very fundamental Christian doctrines. When he asks whether Dr. White knows what he believes – I find that odd, considering Mr. Loftus’ demonstrated ignorance throughout this video, and on his blog. A more pertinent question would be:

Does Mr. Loftus have a correct conception of orthodox Christian doctrine? If so, why is he misrepresenting it so badly? If not – what possible justification does he have for his ignorance? There is a very obvious answer to this question, of course.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.} But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

~ 1 Cor 2:12-16

This is the root of the problem. Mr. Loftus, despite his academic training, simply fails to understand even the most fundamental things of theology. Why?

{So} we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

~ Hebrews 3:19

He does not know God, and thus cannot appraise the things of God. He has no recourse, either. God is the only recourse. I will pray that God does His will in this man – but, of course, God changes the man. What the man thinks of God is really irrelevant. I pray that his eyes will be opened. We shall see.

Again, these standards he gives are not related, in the slightest, to orthodox understanding of the relationship of the members of the Trinity. This is his basic problem. Why does he not have it? Once again – no one can know the things of God unless they are spiritually appraised. One again, as Dr. White says – he has had “every possible opportunity to study the doctrine of the Trinity, and understand it”. Why does he not? He can’t.

What saddens me is that he doesn’t completely misunderstand it. He knows the gospel. Unfortunately, it’s just enough of it to condemn him. It’s truly not any sort of ‘glee’ that I feel, when listening to a false believer speaking of the contents of his false profession. It’s just sad, to me.

Once again – using “being” in a way that in no way accords with a Trinitarian description in any orthodox way simply shows your unwillingness to correctly represent your subject.

I could probably finish with more clips from the Dividing Line, but I think we’ve adequately explored Mr. Loftus’ colossal ignorance of what he puzzlingly considers a doctrine that Dr. White is ignorant of. As we can demonstrably show that this is not the case; as we can further show that Mr. Loftus is blindingly confused as to the nature and implications of Trinitarian doctrine; and even further, that Mr. Loftus has absolutely no excuse for being so staggeringly ignorant of what he professes to be educated in – we are left with only sobering conclusions.

Mr. Loftus does not know what he is talking about – because his mind is incapable of it. What do I mean by this?

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

~Romans 1:21

This qualifies as “futile speculation”, does it not? When you do nto understand, there is typically a reason for this. The reason is: God hides it.

At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from {the} wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal {Him.}

~ Matthew 11:25-27

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…

~ Romans 1:22

Can it really surprise us, when natural men act as they do? That they fail to understand what they fail to understand? It shouldn’t perhaps – but I’m willing to admit that it does surprise me, sometimes.

The wisdom of God is, truly, hidden from those to whom He has not revealed it. It’s hidden in plain sight. The things revealed are even impossible for them to understand as true. How much more so the doctrines approaching the secret things of God? Well, I hope that we can learn something from this. A man given every earthly advantage to learn the truths of God fails miserably, if God Himself is not in it. Folks, this is a sobering lesson for us. Education, opportunity, and even personal mentorship in doctrine are nothing, if God is not in it. Well, may God have mercy on him.

Soli Deo Gloria. Man has not a thing to do with it.

Self-Hoisting Petards

(Cranmer): i asked you to explain
(Cranmer): i then challenged an assertion you made
(Cranmer): you asked me to explain
(Cranmer): i was trying to explain
(Cranmer): but you simply didn’t want to listen to what I had to say
(Manuel): no dice David I want a debate
(Cranmer): it was a debate
(Cranmer): just not a shouting match
(Manuel): no it was not it was you asking questions
(Cranmer): yes, it was
(Manuel): LOL!
(Cranmer): i get to do that when I’m laying out an argument
(Cranmer): and you are free to do it when you lay out yours
(Manuel): LOL!
(Algo): <@Cranmer> when I am done, I will return it to you
(Algo): dishonesty is the mark of a cult
(Manuel): Who wants to debate?
(Manuel): yes it is!
(Cranmer): right
(Cranmer): and so Jesus, the Living ONe, the YAHWEH of Isa 41, says “I was dead”
(Cranmer): there is your problem in a nutshell
(Cranmer): and no claiming rudeness will remove it for you
(Manuel): No dice you are being dishonest david
(Cranmer): Jesus is the YAHWEH of ISa 41, by his own words, and he says “I was dead”
(Cranmer): where’s the dishonesty?
(Cranmer): that’s quite a claim, so I think you would be better backing it up
(Algo): Cranmer, you are being dishonest because he doesn’t want the truth.
(Cranmer): Manuel, where’s the dishonesty?
(Cranmer): I know the ops don’t like people making such heavy unfounded accusations
(Cranmer): Manuel, where’s the dishonesty?
(Manuel): jeuss is both David’s son and davids lord Right?
(Cranmer): yes, yes he is
(Manuel): Both human and divein he which dies and does not die
(Manuel): So yes you are being dishonest
(RazorsKiss): Yes, posesses the natures of God, from eternity, and humanity, from the Incarnation.
(Cranmer): no, since in Rev 1:19 he claims divinity AND says “I died”
(RazorsKiss): and continues with both natures, for Eternity.
(Manuel): You are mixxing him i9nto a hybrid
(Cranmer): thus the divine one dies
(Cranmer): you are presupposing that the divine cannot die
(Manuel): hybrid is your veiw’
(@brigand): I think even the nature of “death” is being debated.
(Reformerz): Are you UPC or are you Apostolic, Manuel?
(Manuel): hybrid
(Cranmer): nope, it’s really simple
(Manuel): apostolic
(RazorsKiss): Could a mortal man bear the wrath of God, Manuel?
(Cranmer): Manuel presupposes that the Divine cannot die
(Cranmer): and Jesus contradicts him
(Manuel): No Your Jesu is a Hybrid
(Cranmer): he claims to the divine yahweh of Isa 41
(Cranmer): and then claims to have died
(Cranmer): so your disagreement is not with me Manuel
(Manuel): jesus is both davids son and davids Lord
(Cranmer): it is with Jesus’ words in Rev 1:19
(RazorsKiss): Could a mortal man take the penalty of death for us all?
(Manuel): yes
(Cranmer): razor, leave him
(Cranmer): leave him to disagree with Jesus
(Cranmer): Manuel disagrees with Jesus.
(Manuel): A Mortal man without sin
* Cranmer thinks that is a terrible position to be in
(RazorsKiss): Or must He be BOTH man and God – man to share in our suffering, and our temptations – and God to bear the wrath of the Father for the sins of

the world?
(Manuel): There is one mediator between god and men THE MAN CHRIST JESUS
* Cranmer goes off to make a ham/cheese toasted sandwich
(Algo): manuel thinks Jesus is a hybrid?
(Cranmer): two fillings, one sandwich – hypostatic union in the one bread
(Manuel): NoI think your veiw of Jeus is a Hybrid
(@brigand): RazorsKiss: Even Job says he needs a mediator who is both God and man.
(RazorsKiss): I think your view of Jesus cannot save.
(Algo): Did you come up with that term?
(RazorsKiss): Only man cannot bear the wrath of God.
* Cranmer is bored with Manuel because he won’t listen to Jesus’ words in Rev 1:19
(RazorsKiss): Only God does not suffer as we do, and is not tempted as we were tempted.
(RazorsKiss): The God-Man can fulfill both.
(RazorsKiss): Did, and will for eternity.
(Manuel): There is One mediator between god and men the man christ jeus
(RazorsKiss): Yes, there is.
(RazorsKiss): Interceding before the Father.
(RazorsKiss): Why does He have the right to intercede before the throne?
(Manuel): No his slain humanity
(Manuel): is ever seen
(RazorsKiss): He is the Son of God – the only begotten of the Father.
(RazorsKiss): So, Manuel.
(Manuel): The sojn of god refers to his humanity not divinity
(RazorsKiss): If, in the beginning was the Word.
(@brigand): How can one mediate between both God and man without being both divine and human?
* Algo shuts up.
(RazorsKiss): And the Word was WITH God – and the Word WAS God – and He was in the beginning with God…
(RazorsKiss): How can we not be taling about 2 different persons – being called God?
(Manuel): Psalm 33:6 by the word of the LORD were the heavens amde and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth . the day you make the breath of your

mouth another person is the day you will have anarguemtn from john 1;1
(RazorsKiss): Why wouldn’t God be one in purpose?
(RazorsKiss): All 3 persons?
(RazorsKiss): How could God NOT be one in purpose, in all 3 persons?
(Manuel): no such thing as three persons of god
(Manuel): you actually have four with your veiw of jesu
(RazorsKiss): John 1 – The Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.
(Manuel): yesssss
(Algo): Sabin is no debater<---but you are? (RazorsKiss): Two persons, being called God. (Manuel): 1st. john 1:1-2 (RazorsKiss): Why is this, Manuel? (Manuel): eternal life was with god from the beggining (RazorsKiss): Eternal life was "God"? (Manuel): 1st. john 1:1-2 (Manuel): yes (Manuel): Yes! (RazorsKiss): So you have two Gods? (RazorsKiss): God - and Eternal Life? (Manuel): No! You do (RazorsKiss): No, I have 3 persons in one God. (Manuel): eternal life is not a person (RazorsKiss): You apparently have two Gods. (RazorsKiss): So it's an impoersonal God? (Manuel): God is Spirit john 4:24 (RazorsKiss): So God is not a person? (RazorsKiss): You said earlier that a spirit cannot be a person. (Manuel): A spirit is not a person (RazorsKiss): God is Spirit. So God is not a person? (RazorsKiss): Curious. (Manuel): Yep (RazorsKiss): So, now you have TWO impersonal Gods. (Manuel): otherwise your jesus is two persons (Manuel): No (RazorsKiss): The God, whom the Word was with - and God - who is spirit, and cannot be a person. (RazorsKiss): Do I have you correctly? (RazorsKiss): Because that is where your argument has taken you. (Manuel): The word is simply that the word Psalm 33;6 (RazorsKiss): 1. You say that God is Spirit. (Manuel): yep (RazorsKiss): 2. You say that a spirit cannot be a person. (Manuel): yep (RazorsKiss): 3. You say that God cannot be a person. (Manuel): he is only a person in the person of the son (RazorsKiss): 4. God is, therefore, what? An inanimate spiritual object? (Manuel): God is spirit (RazorsKiss): A non-personal God gave Christ his Godhood? (RazorsKiss): How would a non-personal God have any interaction with a person? (Manuel): God is a person 1 person in the person of the son (@brigand): Seems like Manuel defines "person" has having flesh and blood. (Manuel): no (Cranmer): 😉 (RazorsKiss): That "person" was only a human being, given his godhood by "god", this impersonal force - according to you. (RazorsKiss): So, we now have *3* Gods, Manuel. (RazorsKiss): One is a person, one is an impersonal force called "The Word" (RazorsKiss): and one is "Jesus" - who WAS a man, but was then "made to be" God, by the impersonal force known as "God", elsewhere. (RazorsKiss): Is this what you're trying to tell us? *** Manuel ( Quit (Manuel:IRC) (RazorsKiss): Rofl. (graceb4me): bummer (@brigand): lol (@brigand): nice RK. (doulos): what? he quit? (RazorsKiss): He's a trinitarian! (RazorsKiss): You all saw that... (RazorsKiss): The Oneness pentacostal just argued himself into being a trinitarian. (RazorsKiss): *sigh* (doulos): God equals spirit, which equals impersonal force which creates Jesus?... * RazorsKiss finds a place to post that one (RazorsKiss): 1. God is spirit, and cannot be a person (doulos): that was insane. (RazorsKiss): 2. So, the "God" in Scripture is an impersonal God (doulos): doesn't understand what a person means.. (RazorsKiss): 3. "The Word" is also impersonal, and also God- and separate from "God" * doulos to Manuel.. person... you keep on using that word..... * doulos I don't that word means what you think it means *** MikeAtHome ( Quit (Read error to MikeAtHome[ Connection reset by peer) (RazorsKiss): 4. Jesus, who is also God - IS personal - but was not always God, but made to BE God (RazorsKiss): by an impersonal "God" * Cranmer returns with his ham cheese and chilli sandwich - trinitarian and cultic * Cranmer also sips his ethiopian harar doppio (RazorsKiss): I think I just KO'd him. (RazorsKiss): Or.. really his own argument did. (crewbear): ham cheese and chili is trinitarian? (doulos): yeah.. no doubt * Cranmer understands that everyone else is jealous (RazorsKiss): Because that was the funny part. It was what HE said that smoked him. (RazorsKiss): all i did was assemble it. (Cranmer): that too *** Manuel ( has joined #prosapologian (doulos): You assemble three into one Razor? (RazorsKiss): Cranmer- did you see Manuel admit to being trinitarian? (Manuel): LOL no you seen no such thing (RazorsKiss): Sure I did. (Cranmer): you're kidding me, that would be good (Manuel): Sorry (Cranmer): oh, he's back (Cranmer): good to have you back, manueal (Cranmer): manuel (Manuel): nom I would belong to a cult then (Cranmer): how you doing with the Divine Jesus claiming to die in Rev 1:19? (RazorsKiss): 1. God is not a person, but impersonal, correct? Because, according to you, a spirit cannot be a person, and God is Spirit. (Cranmer): I am the First and the Last ... I died (Manuel): That is your veiw not mine (Cranmer): no, it's jesus' view (Cranmer): he says (and correct me if I'm wrong here) "I am the First and the Last ... I died" (RazorsKiss): 2. The Word is also God, but also impersonal - and separate from "God" in John 1. (Manuel): The first and last can say that david Because he was not onloy the first divine but the last glorified humnaity that died (Cranmer): manuel is currently dancing for us (RazorsKiss): That's 2 Gods so far, Manuel. (Cranmer): lol (Manuel): for you razor (Cranmer): so "first and Last" is actually a statement about humanity? (Cranmer): ~nas isa 41:4 (@Gutenberg^): 12Isaiah 41:4 "Who has performed and accomplished [it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.'" (NASB) (Manuel): i have One god and one glorified man (RazorsKiss): Then, Jesus is also God, because He was granted his Godhood by the Father - but He is personal - granted His Godhood by the impersonal "God". (RazorsKiss): No, you admitted the "Word" is a God, but not a person. (Cranmer): sorry Razor, I'm interrupting (Cranmer): go ahead (RazorsKiss): And was "with" God, the impersonal Father. (Manuel): We cannot debate here razor you need to come to my group this is confusion compounded (Manuel): Okay lets use your reasoning razor shall we? (RazorsKiss): No, you are confusion multiplied (RazorsKiss): No, let's not. (RazorsKiss): Let's stick to your trinitarian admission. (RazorsKiss): God is, by your admission: (Manuel): yes let's do and i will show you how you have four persons instead of three (RazorsKiss): 1. The impersonal Father (RazorsKiss): 2. The impersonal Word (aka Eternal Life, as you defined it) (Manuel): Okay God the father is a person (Manuel): lets use your reason razor (Cranmer): hello! now he's a person! (RazorsKiss): No, you said God is spirit, and spirits cannot be persons. (Manuel): reasoning (@brigand): !!! (RazorsKiss): Be consistent. (Manuel): Come on now (Manuel): you be consistent? (Manuel): God the father is a persons * Cranmer finishes his sandwich and sits back (RazorsKiss): I'ev been consistently pointing out that you're skipping around like a bug on a hot skillet, yes. (RazorsKiss): Yes, that's my claim - but not yours. (Manuel): come on mr brave let's dance? (Cranmer): a bug on a hot skillet - i like that (RazorsKiss): I'm not interested in my argument. I know it already. (Manuel): No you don't ! * Cranmer dances to Rev 1:19 (RazorsKiss): I'm interested in where you're getting you're trinitarian impression. (RazorsKiss): *your (Cranmer): nice, now Manuel knows our arguments better than us! (RazorsKiss): Because you have outlined 3 Gods for us. (Manuel): your veiw of god is either hybrid or you have four persons (Manuel): I was trinitarain (Cranmer): not at all (Cranmer): you still don't get it (geoffist): you "WERE" trinitarian? not anymore? (Manuel): I lefvt it for the truth' (RazorsKiss): You're also Trinitarian - but with no Biblical basis for it. (Cranmer): i am beginnig to suspect that it's because you don't want to (RazorsKiss): It's a bit confusing. (RazorsKiss): Why can a spirit not be a person again? (Manuel): Come on Razor * Cranmer notes that the first and best way to debate is to properly understand your opponent and address their best argument (RazorsKiss): Please outline that from Scripture for me. (Manuel): come on God the father is a person * Algo can't remember who the Hybrid was. (Cranmer): we're all heretics geoff, keep up 😉 (RazorsKiss): You're revoking your statement that a spirit cannot be a person, then? (@brigand): Cranmer: The best way to debate is to use your words but define them differently, then make random claims (Cranmer): lol (Cranmer): mate (Cranmer): you need the forward slash!!! (RazorsKiss): Manuel: You're revoking your statement that a spirit cannot be a person, then? (Manuel): I don't believe a spirit is a person it is weak and contradictory when explain ing god (Cranmer): try it out, jamie (Cranmer): lol (RazorsKiss): So, "God is Spirit" - thus, God is not a person. (Manuel): Come on let us use your reasoning (Cranmer): oh, I'm not seeing it (Cranmer): my bad (RazorsKiss): ~nas John 4:24 (@Gutenberg^): 12John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (NASB) (Manuel): Yep (Manuel): Yep (RazorsKiss): So, God is not a person, by your statement. (RazorsKiss): So, Christ is not a person, when He says "into your hands I commit my Spirit", either? (Manuel): Stop with your beating around the bush (RazorsKiss): So, Christ is not a person, when He says "into your hands I commit my Spirit", either? (Manuel): That is a human spirit part of a person body soul and spirit jeus was glorified humanity a person (RazorsKiss): The Father is not a person, as Jesus says "God is Spirit" (RazorsKiss): Spirit cannot be a person. You didn't say "God's spirit". (Manuel): razor let us use your reasoning? (RazorsKiss): So, are also denying men have spirits? (Cranmer): i'm bored (Cranmer): someone boot him (RazorsKiss): Why? Yours is much more enlightening. (Cranmer): he simply doesn't want to listen (Manuel): No men have spirits it is part of humanity persons (RazorsKiss): So, are men persons? (Manuel): 'Yes men are persons (Manuel): so was jesus (RazorsKiss): Then spirit can be persons, can't it? (RazorsKiss): God is spirit, is He not? (RazorsKiss): Per John 4:24? (Manuel): why are you asking me ? (Manuel): I thought you knew (RazorsKiss): Because you're the one playing footsie with the truth. (Manuel): Your doctrine is not the truth (RazorsKiss): Is God Spirit, or do you deny the Biblical doctrine? (Manuel): God is Spirit (Manuel): Yes (RazorsKiss): Why then, cannot God be a person? (RazorsKiss): Jesus is. The Father is.. a Father. (Manuel): What? (Apollos): apparently a spirit cannot have personality in CG's world (RazorsKiss): Fathers are typically persons. This describes a relationship. (RazorsKiss): Relationships are only had by persons. (RazorsKiss): You cannot have a relationship involving only one person. (Manuel): of course god can have personality to deal with us on our level but he is above that (RazorsKiss): Is God a person? (RazorsKiss): The Father - is He a person? (@brigand): God is above having a personality? (Algo): with=face to face (Manuel): NO only in the person of the sonm is god a person (RazorsKiss): So who was Jesus talking to, when praying in the Garden? (Manuel): Yes he did (Manuel): he Prayed to his god as a real human man (RazorsKiss): Who was speaking when the Father said "this is my son, in whom I am well-pleased"? (Manuel): The father Duh (RazorsKiss): A person, or an impersonal force? (RazorsKiss): Do impersonal forces have sons? (Manuel): Goid as spirit the allpowerfull all knowing ultimate being

(JuDaS): I am currently reading the Book of Mormon.
(JuDaS): And I am wondering.
* AOMin takes interest
(JuDaS): Why do we reject other doctrines, other than the fact they are false.
(@bluelunch): I would think that would be a good enough reason in itself.
(@AOMin): how can there be a better reason?
(Tur8inFan): Judas: doctrines need warrant
(JuDaS): I am not saying that it is the best reason.
(@AOMin): or even another one?
(Tur8inFan): Doctrines not derived from Scripture lack warrant
(doulos): Do you knowingly accept a falsity?
(Tur8inFan): Therefore we reject those doctrines
(JuDaS): The same way atheists do.
(@AOMin): well, you do understand the issue of truth, correct?
(JuDaS): Do atheists not reject God?
(@AOMin): not in truth, no
(JuDaS): But they know he exists?
(@AOMin): they do so according to Romans 1
(JuDaS): Yes.
(@AOMin): suppressing the knowledge of God
(JuDaS): So, they do know that God exists.
(JuDaS): That is a fact.
(@AOMin): according to Romans 1, yes
(JuDaS): But, believe in a falsity.
(yoopertrol): when I was a roman catholic all I knew was what the church told me, when I started reading the bible they lost their authority
(@AOMin): if I understand you, yes
(JuDaS): That is how you knowingly accept a falsity, AOMin.
(@AOMin): ok
(JuDaS): Back to the initial question.
(JuDaS): Is there another reason why we reject the fallacies other than the fact they are not true?
(doulos): regeneration Judas….
(JuDaS): Regeneration…?
(@AOMin): are you suggesting that there are legitimate times to simply destroy the persons belief rather than witness God’s truth to them?
(@AOMin): I mean, I could do that
(@AOMin): I can come into a convo with a Mormon and just tear JS up one side and down the other
(JuDaS): Hmm, I wasn’t thinking about that.
(JuDaS): But, that makes sense.
(@AOMin): leaving them helpless and hopeless
(doulos): Being born again leads us to truth and gives us spiritual discernment.
(RazorsKiss): always be ready to give a defense….
(JuDaS): Well let me put it this way.
(@AOMin): but what does that achieve?
(RazorsKiss): FOR the hope that is within us
(RazorsKiss): IN gentleness, and reverence.
(GraceAlone): Hey guys, any veteran calvinists here?
(JuDaS): Is there another reason you reject false doctrine IE: Book of Mormon, Quran, NWT other than the fact it is not true?
(RazorsKiss): because of what IS true!
(GraceAlone): Hey
(@AOMin): well, since truth is the core of the Christian faith……I don’t see any other legitimate way
(JuDaS): Yes, that’s what I was aiming for.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas 2cor 10:3-5
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:5 [We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and [we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, (NASB)
(@bluelunch): GraceAlone: what do you mean by ‘veteran Calvinist’?
(@bluelunch): many here have believed in the doctrines of grace for quite some time.
(RazorsKiss): look at the contrast in verse 5.
(JuDaS): Perhaps we don’t reject the Book of Mormon because its false teachings alone.
(JuDaS): But because of its credibility.
(RazorsKiss): destroy speculations and every lofty thing – raised up against what?
(JuDaS): Or, lack of credibility.
(GraceAlone): I just have some genuine questions for those that are somewhat advanced in theier reformed study
(RazorsKiss): the (true) knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: fire away. If anyone can answer, he will.
(JuDaS): You are correct.
(RazorsKiss): as Bahnsen says – press the antithesis
(GraceAlone): Is there anything that happened that was NOT ordained by God?
(RazorsKiss): you have to push their falsity – but with what? The truth in opposition to it.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: nope
(RazorsKiss): You don’t push a negative deconstruction of their argument alone – you push the juxtaposition of the false and the true
(JuDaS): GraceAlone: I believe so, after the reformation, the Bible is no longer a closed text, thus making cults.
(JuDaS): Whilist I am not saying that the Bible should be a closed text.
(GraceAlone): I think the obvious theological answer is no, however, then how can sin and immorality be explained?
(JuDaS): There needs to be equilibrium.
(RazorsKiss): BY showing the true as the only alternative to all of the falsities that exist.
(GraceAlone): You’d have to jump into fatalism and double predestination or supralapsarianism if you say No…
(GraceAlone): If yes, then wouldn’t that destroy the full purpose of God’s FULL sovereignty?
(JuDaS): I am not saying yes/no.
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone: While God did ordain all events, Romans 9 gives the answer as to why evil exists, and what purpose it has.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:14-16
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:16 So then it [does not [depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:17-19
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (NASB)
(JuDaS): There was benefits and… Misfortunes.
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (NASB)
(GraceAlone): So is it double predestination, or single predestination?
(JuDaS): In the reformation.
(RazorsKiss): God ordains all. Period.
(RazorsKiss): However, some are ordained for differing *purposes*.
(RazorsKiss): Some for dishonor, and some for honor.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:20-22
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:23
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:23 And [He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (NASB)
(GraceAlone): Has God ordained sin? I don’t mean by adversity and destruction, but I mean immorality and unholiness
(RazorsKiss): The vessels of wrath were prepared for destruction.
(GraceAlone): So it is double predestination?
(RazorsKiss): Well, we don’t know exactly, I think, is the only answer we make.
(@Algo): Wow….I step out for a sec. and it’s grand Central.
(RazorsKiss): I think trying to make it a “double predestination”, as if God’s decree is a separate thing for believers and unbelievers…
(RazorsKiss): Is not really looking at the problem holistically.
(GraceAlone): are you supralapsarian RazorsKiss?
(RazorsKiss): Does God declare the end from the beginning? Yes, according to Isaiah 46:10
(RazorsKiss): Supra/infra is a bit of an angels dancing on the heads of pins discussion.
(GraceAlone): Infra is more passive while Supra is hard, straight and every close to hyper
(RazorsKiss): So, does/did God ordain that evil men exist? If so, to what purpose does He do so?
(GraceAlone): I don’t know, is it possible that it was ordained for a greater end or means?
(RazorsKiss): Romans 9 tells us – He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy.
(GraceAlone): It’s hard to be completely ound calvinist without going into supralapsarianism and fatalism
(GraceAlone): sound*
(RazorsKiss): Why is it fatalism to accept God’s sovereignty?
(RazorsKiss): Man is responsible for His deeds – because God says he is.
(graceb4me): GraceAlone: are you a Calvinist?
(GraceAlone): Fatalism is God being 100% the cause of everything
(RazorsKiss): God is Just, therefore, God’s judgement of the matter is Just.
(RazorsKiss): No, that’s determinism.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: there’s a difference between ’cause’ and ‘ordain’
(GraceAlone): Somewhat yes, but I’m trying to study on infra and supralapsarianism
(RazorsKiss): Fatalism says that no matter what we do, it’s all determined.
(@brigand): Fatalism is even outside of God’s ability to effect.
(RazorsKiss): and that we can do whatever we want, because it doesn’t matter.
(@brigand): infra and supra are pre-Fall considerations that we really don’t have the insight into.
(RazorsKiss): Well, maybe instead of trying to split hairs on the “order of the decree”, maybe we should try to look to Scripture to see what God’s decree is.
(RazorsKiss): Because, really, that’s all infra/supra is, ultimately.
(@brigand): (and those aren’t the only two options)
(GraceAlone): I see absolute sovereignty, anyone else?
(JuDaS): Before you continue, who are you referring to when you say ”God”, RazorsKiss?
(RazorsKiss): Maybe it’s worthwhile to study, maybe not – but I think your questions are more deep-seated.
(doulos): From Him and through Him and To Him are all things.
(GraceAlone): meaning God has ordained the fall, rather than only “allowing” it to happen, although arguably it could be the same
(RazorsKiss): The trinitarian, Christian creator of heaven and Earth – the Alpha and Omega.
(RazorsKiss): The one and only God 😀
(JuDaS): Are you talking about…!?
(JuDaS): ”I Am?”
(RazorsKiss): How can God allow anything which He has not ordained?
(RazorsKiss): Yes 😀
(@Algo): ……….For Those Of Us In The Slow Group—>
(doulos): Is it evil that God ordained sin to be?
(JuDaS): Nay, but rather beneficial.
(RazorsKiss): Nope. Cannot do evil.
(GraceAlone): That’s a question that I had too
(RazorsKiss): Good is what, when you get down to it?
(GraceAlone): Would God be in one contextual sense, the author of sin, but not in another contextual sense?
(doulos): Was God’s INTENTION in the act, evil Gracealone?
(GraceAlone): Probably not
(RazorsKiss): God ordained creatures that would act contrary to His will, and that their acts would only rebound to His glory, in Eternity.
(RazorsKiss): In Judgment of their sins, which has also been ordained from the beginning.
(GraceAlone): so all the sin is for better end?
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone: exactly.
(RazorsKiss): What did Joseph says to his brothers?
(RazorsKiss): *say.
(JuDaS): Razorskiss: Do you believe in double predestination?
(RazorsKiss): “you meant this for evil – but God meant it for good”
(GraceAlone): I have that position atm
(RazorsKiss): JuDaS- I don’t think the term is sufficient for a definition, really.
(GraceAlone): Wouldn’t Calvinism be unsound if Calvinists were not double predestinaters then?
(RazorsKiss): As it’s commonly used, perhaps I would be – but I don’t think that “double predestination” is sufficiently precise.
(JuDaS): Some of us aren’t Calvinists, though.
(RazorsKiss): Calvinism has never been a monolithic thing.
(JuDaS): Regardless, I think double predestination leaves no room for freewill.
(RazorsKiss): Some have always tried to moderate some things, to the detriment of others.
(RazorsKiss): You’re right.
(RazorsKiss): No will is free save God’s.
(GraceAlone): There is no free will in single either lol
(JuDaS): Ah, ah, but there is.
(@brigand): Read Sproul on Double Pre.
(RazorsKiss): Because no will has freedom to act in any way that is possible, save God’s.
(@bluewoad): brigand: but he’s a Van Halen groupie!
(RazorsKiss): All wills are controlled by the desires that the will acts upon.
(GraceAlone): brb
(doulos): posse peccare non posse non peccare
(JuDaS): What we cannot fail to understand is.
(JuDaS): God did not create us.

(JuDaS): Giving us cards.
(JuDaS): Saying whether we went to hell or not.
(RazorsKiss): No – He created us before the foundation of the world, with the intent, and the decree that specific people would, or would not.
(JuDaS): But rather, the Adversary is giving us ”going to hell” cards.
(JuDaS): And with Jesus, we are exchanging them for ”going to heaven” cards.
(RazorsKiss): As well as decreeing every action we would make, throughout time – as is His prerogative.
(doulos): How does this “exchange” take place?
(RazorsKiss): JuDaS- that’s not only unbiblical, it’s also untrue 😀
(@bluewoad): JuDaS: Satan does not send us to hell. Our sin sends us to hell.
(JuDaS): Let me explain.
(RazorsKiss): God sends us to Hell, actually.
(JuDaS): Or elaborate.
(RazorsKiss): well, those who are going.
* bluewoad nods at RazorsKiss
(JuDaS): Our sin.
(JuDaS): Is transferred to Jesus Christ.
(@brigand): JuDaS: Satan could be nonexistant and sinners would still sin and hate God.
(doulos): Only if Jesus died for them Judas.
* Algo hopes to see this discussion summarized on RazorsKiss’s blog later.
(JuDaS): And righteousness is given to us believers.
(RazorsKiss): heh
(@Algo): Heh
(JuDaS): Thus propitiation is given to God the Father.
(RazorsKiss): hey, it just happened to catch me on the way in
(JuDaS): Through Jesus.
(JuDaS): Does that make more sense now?
(JuDaS): And we gain justification.
(RazorsKiss): Sure. But who did Christ die for?
(JuDaS): Or, are justified.
(doulos): Who is “we” in the justification?
(JuDaS): Us.
(RazorsKiss): Who is “us”.
(JuDaS): Believers, of course.
(RazorsKiss): Ok, so those who don’t believe, are not part of that equation.
(JuDaS): Not necessarily.
(GraceAlone): Hey RazorsKiss, God’s absolute decree in all, would it make God in a contextual sense the author of sin?
(JuDaS): No, actually.
(doulos): What does propitiate and EXpiation mean?
(GraceAlone): He would not be the author of sense as sin being the actual end and reason, but rather a better cause and goodness.
(RazorsKiss): As God decrees the end from the beginning, He decreed the number and the manner of the salvation of God’s Own – and those are whom Christ’s death was both effective and intended for.
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone- in effect.
(JuDaS): Hmm…
(GraceAlone): In a sense; yes, you mean?
(RazorsKiss): Basically, that God has a plan within which all sin will have a purpose, to bring glory to God, and to display His mercy.
(RazorsKiss): On those whom were spared the wrath of God by the sacrifice of His Son.
(JuDaS): I think Razor nailed it pretty good there.
(doulos): Did Jesus die to purchase faith for those who will NOT believe?
(RazorsKiss): So: If God decrees those who are saved, and those who are not – as well as the acts throughout history, made by every man, and all to His greater glory – can we possibly say, like the objector in Romans 9, that God is unjust?
(doulos): By no means!
(RazorsKiss): God has mercy on whom He has mercy – and hardens whom He will harden – and all to His glory.
(GraceAlone): Of course not, but it is not God rejecting the salvation of man, it is God ordaining sin, that’s a very tough stumbling block for me
(RazorsKiss): Our perception of the justice of the thing – or the lack thereof, is completely irrelevant.
(RazorsKiss): Why? God creates men for whatever purpose He desires.
(doulos): We are but dust.

(RazorsKiss): Does God sin by creating peoople who will sin, even under the Arminian scheme?
(RazorsKiss): It’s the same question, just pushed back one level.
(RazorsKiss): God says, resoundingly, in Romans 9 – “Who are you, to answer back to God?”
(GraceAlone): in Arminianism, arminians basically give up the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty
* bluewoad nods at RazorsKiss
(RazorsKiss): God, very evidently, is nothing of the sort.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: you basically have to be either an open theist, or believe in the ordaining of sin.
(JuDaS): RazorsKiss, so do you in fact, believe there is no such thing as freewill?
(doulos): A biblical free will
(RazorsKiss): No, only contingent will.
(RazorsKiss): Contingent upon God’s ordination.
(UncleStudy): What about the nature of Justice? Is it a mere ‘levelling of the scales’? Or is it in someway restorative?
(UncleStudy): i.e. If your daughter is raped, is justice satisfied because the rapist receives retribution?
(GraceAlone): basically either open theist, or supralapsarian + double predestinater
(RazorsKiss): ~nas romans 9:16
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:16 So then it [does not [depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): Man does will – but how does he will? In accordance with his desires.
* doulos nods
(RazorsKiss): If a man’s desires are continually evil – what is his will?
(RazorsKiss): If a man has the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit, he is ABLE to have that war that Paul desribes in Romans 7, between flesh and spirit.
(JuDaS): Quite frankly, I think predestination well… Double predestination is completely unBiblical as well.
(RazorsKiss): Why? Because he has a new spirit.
(doulos): text please?
(RazorsKiss): UncleStudy: Justice: That which is in accordance with the nature of God.
(RazorsKiss): God IS Just. Therefore, accordance with God = Justice.
(RazorsKiss): Well, i gotta head down to the ballfield.
(RazorsKiss): But I hope that was beneficial somehow 😀
(JuDaS): Yes…

Theistic Determinism

Recently, I’ve been doing a good bit of study on issues of the will, desire, and their relationship to God’s sovereignty.

As a result of that study, I’ve moved (I believe) toward a position of Theistic Determinism, instead of my previous (self-defined, perhaps out of ignorance) soft compatibilism. However, to be completely honest, I saw quite a few different definitions for each – so this may fit better than I think.

Why’s that? Mostly because I’ve never really followed the presupposition of God’s Sovereignty to it’s philosophical conclusion before, in my thinking. Here’s my definition of what I’ve come to, as a result.

God has (Sovereignly) decreed all that will occur (i.e. all of history that ever will be), and how it is to occur . God has decreed in accordance with His intrinsic desires. God can decree whatsoever history he pleases, and by whatsoever means that history will be accomplished, as he pleases. Man’s will is in accordance with his own desires; those desires are influenced and generated by external and internal circumstance(s), environment(s), and natural inclination(s). These desires and influences are always in accordance with the decree of God; Thus, every will of man is in accordance with the decree of God. Man’s will is contingent upon God’s will, and can be said to be “free” in only a contingent manner, and with no autonomy possible. Man’s will is always in accordance with his desires, so man can never be said to be forced, or coerced into any action against his will. Man is responsible for his actions before God, regardless of his opinion of the justice of God, or the “fairness” thereof. The only valid concept of “Justice” proceeds from God’s intrinsic nature; He decrees from that Just nature, when He says that all His works are Just; Thus, God is just in declaring men responsible for all of their contingently free desires and actions.

So, let’s break that down.

1. God has (Sovereignly) decreed all that will occur (i.e. all of history that ever will be).
1a. God has decreed also how history will occur.
1b. God has decreed in accordance with his desires.
1c. God’s desires are intrinsic to Him.
1d. God can decree whatsoever history he pleases, and by whatsoever means that history will be accomplished, as he pleases.
1e. Whatsoever occurs, is contingent upon God’s decree.
(Eph 1:11, Isaiah 46:10, 48:3, 55:11, Acts 4:28, James 1:17, Prov 16:33, Numbers 23:19, Acts 2:23, Deu 28:63, 1 Sam 12:22, Jer 5:22, 18:4,6, Jon 1:14, )

2. Man’s will is in accordance with his own desires.
2b. Those desires are influenced and generated by external and internal circumstance(s), environment(s), and natural inclination(s).
2c. Those desires and influences are always in accordance with the decree of God.
2d. Every will of man is in accordance with the decree of God.
(Romans 6:12,16, Gal 5:17, Eph 3:23, 2 Ti 4:3, Jam 3:4, 4:15)

3. Man’s will is contingent upon God’s will.
3a. Man’s will can be said to be “free” in only a contingent manner, and with no autonomy possible.
3b. Man’s will is always in accordance with his desires, so man can never be said to be forced, or coerced into any action.
3c. Man is responsible for his actions before God, regardless of his opinion of the justice of God, or the “fairness” thereof.
3d. The only valid concept of “Justice” proceeds from God’s intrinsic nature.
3e. He decrees from that Just nature, when He says that all His works are Just.
3f. God is just in declaring men responsible for all of their contingently free desires and actions.
(Romans 8:5, 9, Prov 11:6, Eph 2:3)

Questions, comments, objections? (Spiritual proofs would be helpful, especially.)

Big thanks to Tur8inFan for helping me gather my thoughts – and for contributing greatly to the first section. If any error exists, it belongs to me, however… Thanks also to all of the folks who have debated me lately… you’re represented in this somewhere!

CADRE Comments Dustup

No, it isn’t what you think.

Outspoken and antagonistic skeptic John Loftus locked horns with the outspoken and antagonistic Christian apologist Frank Walton in CADRE’s comment section. The irony?

The post was concerning whether atheists are persecuted or not, with BK condemning the hint of any such practice.

Neither person involved in the fracas were especially gracious. It looks as if there’s plenty of history between the two – but here’s a tip: Don’t let it spill into the comment section of other people’s blogs.

It’s not especially polite.

Vox Weekly’s current question is here, submitted by John Loftus (reposted from his blog, here).

This post is a response.

In my book I argue that there is no coherent understanding of the atonement. Here are some questions for those who accept the penal substitutionary view:

Fair enough.

In order for someone to be forgiven why must there be punishment at all?

Well, I think we’ve crossed terms already. The forgiveness is not dependent upon the punishment. It follows after it, but is not dependent upon it. Forgiveness is granted upon repentance, not atonement. Atonement is required to satisfy God’s Justice, and His Holiness, but not to satisfy His Mercy.

To forgive someone doesn’t mean that you must first punish the offender at all.

Yes, they are two different terms altogether.

Punishment is satisfied by the Atonement, and satisfies God’s Holiness.

Forgiveness is granted by God, and satisfies His Mercy.

They are related, as God will not forgive anyone who has not been atoned for. This is due to His holiness, which cannot tolerate sin. A sinful man cannot even *be in the presence of God*. It’s not a random requirement, it is necessity. For us to be with God, we must be atoned for, and our sins as if they never were – as far as the East is from the West.

Forgiveness doesn’t really depend upon the remorse of the offender, either, although it does help quite a bit. At this point it’s not up to the offender at all, but the victim who must find a way to forgive.

Remorse is onlya step toward repentance, which is required for salvation. God found a way to forgive – He substituted Himself for us. The victim took the punishment for the offender, and seeks to grant the offender eternal fellowship with him.

To forgive means bearing the suffering of what that person has done to you without retaliation.

That’s a bit of a fib. Forgiveness is pardon, excusing a mistake or offense – not bearing suffering and the like.

If I stole something from you, then forgiveness means bearing the loss without recompense.

How can we recompense God for anything we’ve done? We have no way of doing so. That doesn’t apply very well. Besides, God doesn’t want recompense. God wants Justice, and Holiness. Neither can accept anything short of perfection without negative consequences.

If I slandered you, forgiving means bearing the humiliation without retaliating.

God cannot slander us, and cannot ever commit any sin in retaliation. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

If the cross of Christ means someone got punished for my sins, then that’s not offering forgiveness, that’s punishing someone for what I did wrong.

Do you really think that forgiveness means that there are no consequences for sin? If my son or daughter steals from me – I’ll forgive him or her – but, they will still be punished for what they did. To simply allow them to do wrong, and not face consequences for it is not good parenting.

I forgive them – I do not hold it against them, and still love them. However, they will still have to face consequences for their wrongdoing.

If the cross was needed to pay the punishment for my sins, then how can God really be a forgiving God?

Punishment was for the sin. Forgiveness is for the sinner. Punishment is for the action. Forgiveness is for the actor. Actions have consequences – forgiveness does not negate those.

Forgiveness and punishment are not balance here. Atonement and punishment are. Forgiveness is the act of God to grant life eternal with Him, to those who believe. Atonement is the payment for sin by the substitutionary death of Christ. The two are not the same. Atonement is paying for the consequences of sin. Forgiveness is granting more than just not-death, but life more abundantly. Therein lies the difference.

Forgiveness doesn’t require punishment.

No, it doesn’t. Holiness and Justice does.

To put it bluntly, if I can’t forgive you for striking me on the chin until I return the blow back to you, or to someone else, then that’s not forgiveness, that’s retaliation, or sweet revenge!

Do we let criminals go free, if the families forgive them? Do we let people get away with crimes, if we choose to forgive them? Only if a pardon is signed – but the consequences are always the same, and authority has to grant that pardon to the consequences.

In God’s legal system, there is one penalty, for one crime. Death, for Sin. To pay that penalty required a substitutionary death. God’s love is still boundless, but it does not allow for sin to go unpunished. It must be atoned for, and it has been, for those who believe. For those who do not, they will take their own penalty on themselves.

Revenge is never an ethical motive for action, even if we are led to take revenge on others sometimes. John Hick: “A forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment is not forgiveness, but merely and acknowledgment that the debt has been paid in full. (The Metaphor of God Incarnate, p. 127).

Vengeance is often quite ethical. If a man takes a life, his life is required of him. God says “the man who sins, shall die”. God is the essence of ethics, thus, you are incorrect. God Himself says “Vengeance is Mine”. So, rethink that one. Your own idea of ethical, when God says differently, won’t sway me here.

Besides, revenge is said to be wrong because it can be done spitefully, or vindictively. It’s been a mainstay of human life since human life began, just about. However, Christians are told that revenge is not ours – it is God’s – because He is Just, and Righteous in every way. How could a perfectly righteous God seek vengeance and not do so Justly and Rightly?

It’s not possible. Thus, you are incorrect.

To sum up:

Forgiveness =/= Atonement.
Punishment does not relate to forgiveness.
Vengeance is not wrong when God executes it.

That’s about it.

A New Way to Be Wise

A response to the comments posted here, by t.f.

God decides to make a universe (for whatever reason)

Actually, He says why He created it.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.
~ Col. 1:16

God created everything – for Himself.

God decides to create free moral agents (ditto)

Well, that’s exlained as well: Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.
~ Isaiah 43:7

It’s to God’s own glory everything exists.

God decides to create some rules (to, supposedly, give them moral choices)

Well, I’d have to disagree with you, there. They aren’t rules He “created” – they are the essence of God’s own character. Things are, because God is. God is holy – thus, sin cannot be permitted – unholiness is, by definition, wrong.

It’s not arbitrary. It is in keeping with the character and person of God.

God arbitrarily decides to assign the punishment of “death” for ALL SIN, and specifically, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin”

First: Where is your backing for “arbitrarily”? Where is that said, implied, or mentioned?

Second: Why not? If every sin is a specific violation of the very character of God – His holiness, shouldn’t He set the penalty?

Since man, by virtue of his free will, chooses at *ANY* point to disobey, god must punish man with death/require blood, in order to be “just” or consistent

With Himself, correct.

However, since god is love/good, god decides to give man an “escape hatch” from this system of justice by offering mercy/grace


god decides to pay the penalty of sin in the place of man
those men who “accept it” get to have grace


(god is not “just” in this sense, since punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty is a tortured logical exercise in demonstrating “justice”)

By who’s standard? Yours, or God’s? God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, correct?

(Isaiah 55:8-9)

those men who do not believe it, for whatever reason, still get what is coming to them – death and hell

Well, it’s not believing *it*, per se – it’s believing *in* God as Savior – and your own need for such a Savior – and turning away from the sin that required you to need a Savior.

in summary:
god dies because god decided death was necessary to pay for what god determined was sin because man committed sin and god dies for man and if man accepts it he gets eternal bliss and if he doesn’t he gets eternal hellfire

…sound about right to you?

Eh. To some extent. Obviously, it’s more complex than that – but that’s a decent synopsis – aside from one thing. God doesn’t precisely “decide” that death was necessary. It *is* necessary, because of God’s holiness.

and do you really wonder why paul said the gospel was foolishness to people like myself?

No, I don’t. At all. It’s very clear it is, and there is a reson for that, which is grounded in what you mean by “foolishness” – and from what perspective that determination is made.

That series of verses has much more to it than just “the gospel is foolishness”.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.” For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

~ 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:16

Basically, this passage says that God’s wisdom is totally different from our wisdom. We have only so much information to go on – and He has it all. God shows us what is right, directly. This is moral wisdom, as well – not just intellectual wisdom. When you try to filter God’s principle through your own, it won’t work. You have not been shown what is correct about the world around you, because you insist on insisting that your way is correct – and something which does not conform to your way of thinking must, (dare I say it?) for some reason, be inconsistent.

This is not logical. If there is a transcendent being – God – his ways, necessarily, as Isaiah mentions earlier, will be much higher than our ways – and different. We haven’t even got to the point of our intrinsic sinful nature, or our egocentricity. Basically, Paul is saying that regardless of what men *think* is wise – God will show us, like Paul does later in this letter to the Corinthians, “a more excellent way”. God’s way of doing things may not jive with our sensibilities. I think, before we rush to say “it isn’t logical”, we ask ourselves “how in the world am I qualified to judge that?” Are you eminently logical? Do you have the answer to everything? God asks Job that, in a serious of pointed questions.

Job’s answer is excellent.

Then Job answered the LORD and said, “I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ “Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” ‘Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.’ “I have heard6 of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes.”

When we encounter the Living God, we too, repent in dust and ashes – and we learn a new kind of wisdom. Not the wisdom which we thought was wisdom – the same wisdom anyone else deems themselves as possessing. This wisdom is the wisdom of God, which surpasses everything we thought we knew before. It’s a new way to look at things, because we have more of the information – and we have the Author to explain His book to us.

Wouldn’t that be the best way to go about understanding what an author meant, when He wrote a book?

That’s the kind of wisdom God shares with those who are His. It’s not “based on nothing”. It’s based on MORE. It’s a fundamental paradigm shift, which leaves you looking at things a completely different way. The “wisdom” people think they have looks foolish, in comparison to God’s. God’s “foolishness”, as they call it, looks like transcendent profundity. That is the meaning. God gives, and we receive. His wisdom, not ours. We’re not as smart, or as profound, as we think we are.

Hosted by: Dreamhost