Pilgrim, you sound like Spock. "It's illogical." Logic plays a part, but its not a religion. Whats logical about the idea of being born again or the Atonement? Children don't function on logic, and yet they easily accept those notions.
Josh "...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
doulos said: Pilgrim, you sound like Spock. "It's illogical." Logic plays a part, but its not a religion. Whats logical about the idea of being born again or the Atonement? Children don't function on logic, and yet they easily accept those notions.
You are grasping at straws now and making wrong "illogical" assumptions. I do not even come close to advocating "logic" as a religion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> However, God is not illogical, nor has the Spirit of God inspired illogical ideas in His Word.
What I wrote in other places is that it is illogical for someone to "deduce" from what the Bible clearly says is a "person" that it can be applied to mean "office", etc. The Bible is infallible and inerrant and thus logical. And even if you personally cannot comprehend something, e.g., the new birth, it doesn't mean that it is beyond logic. The inability to comprehend something isn't synonymous with illogical or irrational. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Of course, I'm not really sure what your point was in your reply? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Whats logical about the idea of being born again or the Atonement?
What's illogical about these ideas? Are they mysterious, miraculous and perhaps even paradoxical? Yes. The same goes for the Incarnation, Trinity, and the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's freedom. But there is nothing illogical or contradictory about them at all. How can you say you believe that the Bible is inerrant if you do not believe that there is a difference between true and false, or contradictory statements? Can Jesus be the Way, the Truth, and the Life and NOT be the Way, the Truth, and the Life at the same time and in the same sense? If the law of noncontradiction or the basic laws of logic do not hold then the two statements "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again," and "some people can see the kingdom of God even if they are not born again," can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. If the law of noncontradion does not hold, then what does it even mean to say that God is a God of truth and cannot lie? What is the difference between the truth and an untruth or a lie? Between God and the devil? You're on shaky ground O'Doul!
Oh you know that whole wisdom of the world vs. wisdom of God thing. I was merely (attempting) to state that if you do the math in a logical, scientific, HUMAN way that it doesn't make sense. Its a big jump from there to here, but not a logical one.
With the Spirit, of course it all meshes together and we understand, but was it so easy before? I don't think so. It wasn't logical.
Josh "...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
I'm not really at all sure what you mean <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />, and I don't want to guess and risk turning you into a straw man. I'll leave it alone for now, and just add that logic is an essential tool that God has given us to be able to understand His Word and just about everything else in the world. Yes, the Wisdom and Truth of God's Word are foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is fallen man who is illogical, not God or His Word. We need to be born of the Spirit and have the Spirit dwelling inside us and renewing our mind through the Word in order to understand and apprehend the truths of God's Word; but, the Spirit will never lead us to an understanding or interpretation that contradicts logic, since logic reflects the structure and nature of the Mind of God. If you want to pursue this any further I suggest beginning a new thread. But in my opinion Pilgrim is not being Spock-like but Christ-like in calling a brother to be accountable to the laws of logic.
doulos said: Oh you know that whole wisdom of the world vs. wisdom of God thing. I was merely (attempting) to state that if you do the math in a logical, scientific, HUMAN way that it doesn't make sense. Its a big jump from there to here, but not a logical one.
With the Spirit, of course it all meshes together and we understand, but was it so easy before? I don't think so. It wasn't logical.
Perhaps the problem here is one in regard to the doctrine concerning the noetic effects of the Fall? Man's "total depravity" is one of moral inability, i.e., he hates all that is good, right, etc. Although it is true that all of our being has been negatively effected to one degree or another, fallen man can still think reasonably and logically. If this were not so, then those who reject the truth could not be held responsible for doing so. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
When the Bible speaks of the Gospel being "foolishness" to the unregenerate, it isn't referring to something illogical, but rather to man's natural hatred and aversion to it. Some of the most intellectually gifted Atheists are able to understand what the Bible teaches far better than many believers. Their problem is not one of comprehension but of acceptance and personal application, i.e., they either deny what the Bible teaches is propositionally true and/or that it is of any relevance to them. (cf. Rom 1:18-23; Acts 17:1f)
doulos said: Oh you know that whole wisdom of the world vs. wisdom of God thing. I was merely (attempting) to state that if you do the math in a logical, scientific, HUMAN way that it doesn't make sense. Its a big jump from there to here, but not a logical one.
With the Spirit, of course it all meshes together and we understand, but was it so easy before? I don't think so. It wasn't logical.
It was never entirely a matter of not understanding, since there are plenty of Godhaters who understand admirably well Christian doctrine and what the Bible teaches. The matter is one of belief and repentance, both of which Godhaters refuse. There is nothing illogical about any Christian doctrine; there are only things which the natural man cannot accept because he lacks the Spirit which transforms the heart.
Logic is basic to proper thinking. You cannot think well without the use of logic, or else you will come to many contradictory, and therefore meaningless, conclusions.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
I'm weary of the sycophancy on this site at times (except where it's sarcastically couched)!!! Come on, let's be man enough to beg to differ.
Pilgrim, I resent your logically very flawed dismissal of my "illogical" thinking (which I regard as a name-calling cop out rather than a creditable winning of an argument). Let's suppose your future antichrist appears next week. How would you identify him, if not by his dogma and his office? In what other way would he be revealed as THE antichrist, and not AN antichrist?
Pilgrim said: It's so simple, really! Read the Scriptures. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" /> They refer to THE antichrist as "he" . . . not "it". Secondly, an office cannot hold to dogma; persons only hold to dogma. Thirdly, there are specific "denials" which the Apostle John says THE and the MANY antichrists can be identified by. The "office" is of one, not "many". Fourthly, THE antichrist is referred to as the man of sin who "is to be revealed". Thus how can an existing "office" qualify as that which hasn't been revealed yet and one which is inextricably tied to the end of the "last days"? And lastly, THE antichrist will be cast into the Lake of Fire to suffer eternal torment along with all the other reprobate persons. This cannot be said to be true of an "office".
The use of the definite article in scripture does not necessarily refer to a single person (Dan. 8:23; 2 Tim. 3:17; Matt. 22:21, etc.). The Papists themselves refer to their whole line of Popes as if it were one person.
Quote
THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF THE ANTICHRIST By William F. Schink It is objected that the various expressions of II Thess. 2 must necessarily refer to individuals: Man of sin, son of perdition, that Wicked one. But all these expressions may also be understood collectively. The use of the definite article need not mean a single person. It may mean a series of men, a class of people, in fact, it is Scripture usage to designate a whole class of people by the definite singular. Dan. 8:23ff. the Prophet speaks of a king, though it is evident that a whole succession of kings are meant. II Tim. 3:17, a direct parallel to "the man of sin," Paul says: "that the man of God may be perfect." Matt. 22:21: "Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." The reference is to the office of Caesar, to all Caesars, to the whole series of Roman emperors or rulers. Gerhard turns the tables completely on papistical exegesis by citing Matt. 16:18 against them. They refer the phrase "on this rock," which was spoken to Peter, to their whole line of Popes. He reminds them that in their church canons, wherever the term "Pope" occurs, the reference is not to a certain individual, but to any scoundrel who may bear that name at that time. Papists say: If the Pope is the Antichrist, there are 200 Antichrists; we answer: If the Pope is the head of the Church, there are 200 heads, 200 bridegrooms.-The very prophecy II Thess. 2 proves that it must refer to a series of persons. Antichrist, Paul says, will not meet his end till Judgment Day. And yet the iniquity was already there in the days of the Apostles; no single person can live as long as that. Paul bases his portrayal and his expressions on Dan. 7-11. There Daniel first describes Antiochus Epiphanes as a type of Antichrist, and in close connection with this description he adds a prophecy of the Antichrist himself, chap. 12. Borrowing from that analogy, Paul here also speaks of the Antichrist as of one person.
I prefer the term "orthodox preterist" to "partial preterist." And I think of "full preterists" more in terms of "hyper preterists" than in terms of being "more" preterist than orthodoxy.
speratus said: The use of the definite article in scripture does not necessarily refer to a single person (Dan. 8:23; 2 Tim. 3:17; Matt. 22:21, etc.). The Papists themselves refer to their whole line of Popes as if it were one person.
1) Schink's exegesis is fatally flawed in that he fails to interpret the Thessalonian passages in their immediate CONTEXT!! [color:"red"]A text out of context is nothing more than pretext.[/color]
2) Additionally, both you and Schink have failed to rightly use the "Analogy of Faith", i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture, choosing rather to begin with a prejudicial presupposition and then set out to justify it by twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction. You have not, as is typical, interacted with the passages quoted several times by both myself and Brad from 1John. In those passages, there are specific "denials" which reveal the identify of the Antichrist, along with his precursors; aka: "many". None of the identifying marks (doctrine) can be said to apply to the pope, whether the man or the office.
Creating a strawman and then burning it to the ground may serve to satisfy you, but it surely doesn't make your case. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
flunky1 said: I'm weary of the sycophancy on this site at times (except where it's sarcastically couched)!!! Come on, let's be man enough to beg to differ.
Geritol is said to perk up those who feel "weary". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> However, I fail to see where anyone here can be said to have spoken with obsequiousness. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> The fact is that we HAVE been differing, not only on the biblical qualifications of "the" and the "many" antichrists of which both the Apostles Paul and John have written about, but also as to the method of reasoning used to come to your opposing view.
Quote
You then lamented: Pilgrim, I resent your logically very flawed dismissal of my "illogical" thinking (which I regard as a name-calling cop out rather than a creditable winning of an argument). Let's suppose your future antichrist appears next week. How would you identify him, if not by his dogma and his office? In what other way would he be revealed as THE antichrist, and not AN antichrist?
Your resenting of my alleged "logically flawed" dismissal is noted. However, it doesn't prove that my dismissal of your illogical reasoning is illogical. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />
The fact is I don't need any other way to identify the Antichrist other than his "dogma". And, why would I since that is what God has chosen as the primary mark by which he/they are to be identified? That dogma is clearly stated in John's first Epistle, of which both myself and Brad have pointed out. The pope, whether the person or for your benefit, the office, doesn't hold to any of those specific denials, e.g., the Trinity, deity of Christ or the return of the Christ in the flesh. How much clearer would you have had the Holy Spirit put it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.good-music-guide.com/images/monogram.gif)
