Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

REPORT: TOL Statement of faith

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Truster
    replied
    Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
    You OK?
    Said the pot to the kettle.

    Leave a comment:


  • patrick jane
    replied
    Originally posted by Charity View Post
    Verily verily if is true then everybody is free, everyone is concerned a rising army to large for government to conceal- but too be free of sin means - also be free of death. If the Roman Empire government is offended with Jesus, an threatened by the size of his message! Every person, Arab, Jew, Celtic peters an mary's were freed then I Would digest the Roman Empire off shore government tax for lawfully forcing taxation buying sin sacrifices was destroyed by Jesus!
    So, it makes spence spence to say. People unit when greedy government over step!!!
    An yes He was swiftly excecutied for rising his father David statutes.. no longer a sacrifice an offering ,
    You OK?

    Leave a comment:


  • Charity
    replied
    Verily verily if is true then everybody is free, everyone reveals a rising army a large people...against the actor...government whom to conceal- but too be free of sin means - also be free of death. If the Roman Empire government is offended with Jesus, an threatened by the size of his message! Every person, Arab, Jew, Celtic peters an mary's were freed then I Would digest the Roman Empire off shore government tax for lawfully forcing taxation buying sin sacrifices was destroyed by Jesus!
    So, it makes spence spence to say. People unit when greedy government over step!!!
    An yes He was swiftly excecutied for rising his father David statutes.. no longer a sacrifice an offering ,

    Leave a comment:


  • Bright Raven
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonnet View Post
    Regarding the Statement of faith - please define 'our' here:

    For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried.

    Is it all people without exception or only true believers?
    Why would it make a difference for a non-believer?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonnet
    replied
    Regarding the Statement of faith - please define 'our' here:

    For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried.

    Is it all people without exception or only true believers?
    Last edited by Sonnet; September 30th, 2017, 08:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonnet
    replied
    Do you have a similar statement defining the Gospel?

    Leave a comment:


  • Charity
    replied
    ? disabled the vehicle

    Leave a comment:


  • Charity
    replied
    how about the second easter, when they killed Jame's and because the jew's cheered he proceeded to take peter to... one year after jesus was destroyed the roman empire tormented the church and KILLED AGAIN, JAMES then took peter too, the roman empire government wanted to present peter to the jew's after easter, with a omen..wither he had come unto himself again, or not come unto himself again, the legion of roman guards, there own nation where destroyed because he came unto himself again, funny that, in complete reverse... so no man could confirm this angel that came back a year latter, smote he peter on the side, that the chains fall off his ankles, just as the lord, one year to pass, and he came unto himself again.. pretty much like the story that was never told, un confirmed to the crowd waiting outside until easter sunday arrived.. ??? tell me how many bodies dose vatican city need to hide, and which is the body that they still guard today..??

    Leave a comment:


  • Charity
    replied
    I understand well, just in the same way Jesus received a free silver coin from the fish's mouth to pay his tax bill for free, I understand, that taxation on sinning sinners was a big business for the off shore government, the roman empire that WAS ruling Israel 2000 years ago..I UNDERSTAND jESUS turned the money exchangers table up in the temple, because the roman empire was taxing animal scarifies, and sending the tax money back to rome.. every last coin out of the city.. back to rome..and the people heard him, and rose up.. so they destroyed him.. and conveniently made him the last sacrifice and offering ever, a sacrifice for all men here after.. then the roman empire government army carried all the temple gold, 50 ton, back to rome, and convinced there own nation, that they should put a wall up, and separate themselves from their own army from the priest hood,.. that vatican country then became the very first, and only government to have a country of it own.. a hand full of salbentmen> the book of romans.. to the romans> there own nation. teaching them the new religion that the itailain nation should need to learn..

    Leave a comment:


  • Sealeaf
    replied
    Just a caution; We are humans, and when we in our effort to understand God start talking about TIME we are talking about something we do not understand in exactly the same way a fish does not understand WATER. The bible is written with words and words that humans 3000 years ago understood. We have in the last 50years learned enough about Time to finally understand that time can't be explained in words! To start to understand time we need heavy duty Math. We don't have the tools for the job. We need people who can work with relativistic math. Those folks are scientists not theologians. These are two groups that rarely overlap and when we have a rare scientifically literate theologian we need to listen to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • fzappa13
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    To AMR:

    I would add for clarity that I am possibly the most anti-Aristotelian human who has ever lived, and that's not hyberbolic drama. If one human (and their influence) could be removed from the historical landscape of humanity, I would easily choose Aristotle.

    (This is relative to the subject of logic above.)
    Me? I'd probably take out Philo Farnsworth.

    Leave a comment:


  • SabathMoon
    replied
    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    What does it mean when it says that the Lord Jesus was eternally begotten of God and not made?
    It means perpetually begotten in English.

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I get the issue with "work", but am at a loss for a better term. Perhaps "property" would be a better substitute as it retains the ontological aspect.

    As to logical ordering I see no issue with confusion related to sequence if one is properly grounded on logic per se. The latter (sequence) would be confusing, given the temporal association. But, our logic is not necessarily God's logic. There is an original, uncreated logic, which is the logic of the triune God. This logic is eternal, infinite, simple, triune, and personal. It is the self-coherence of God; it is the divine, triune, self-consistency. The relationship between the logic of God and logic as we know it, such as Aristotelian logic, is complex. If we take Aristotle’s logic to be identical to God’s logic, we end up with Aristotle’s God. Sigh.

    First, logic as we know it depends upon the original logic of God. For example, God is. Therefore, it is false that God is is false. The law of the excluded middle works in the created order because God, as uncreated, eternally is. I would go so far as to say that the act of creation and the continuing providence of the triune God are the sine qua non of logic as we know it.

    Second, logic as we know it is often falsely credited with its own self-sufficiency—it is taken to be ultimate; in other words, the above is often denied, implicitly or explicitly. It is denied by non-theistic or anti-theistic writers who claim that logic is, that Christian theism violates the laws of logic, and that, therefore, Christian theism is false, or irrational. This line of thought takes logic as we know it to be ultimate in and of itself, as self-existent.

    There are theistic philosophers who take logic as we know it to be the eternal logic of God. This is also a denial of the dependence of logic as we know it upon the original logic of God, since it describes God in terms of logic, rather than describing logic in terms of God: its methodology is creatio-centric. This has to do with those perhaps overzealous defenders of the Creator/creature distinction who claim that logic is a created thing; they also deny the organic dependence of logic as we know it upon the eternal logic of God. They claim that the two are utterly unrelated and unrelatable.

    If it is true that the original logic is the (logic of the) triune God, it would seem that one must believe in the triune God to understand logic rightly, or ultimately, or truly, or something like that—to account for it, we might say. If that is the case, the simple truths of logic like the laws of identity, the excluded middle, and non-contradiction, set before us the question of the very foundation of our thinking and our understanding of the world. There appear to be two basic alternatives: recognition of the triune Creator God as Lord and judge of all, or affirmation of the self-sufficiency and ultimacy of the laws of logic. Either God is our logic, or logic is our God.

    If we define believability and possibility in terms of logic, if we treat logic as we know it as ultimate—even more ultimate than God—then Christianity faces tough challenges. And it should face problems if we take logic as we know it to be ultimate and self-sufficient. Taking logic as we know it as ultimate is to mistake the analogue (ectype) for the original (archetype), and thus, in effect, to take the (created) world itself as ultimate and self-sufficient.

    Consider...
    God has determined whatsoever comes to pass.
    Man’s moral acts are things that comes to pass.
    Therefore man’s moral acts are determined and man is not responsible for them.

    Clearly from the point of view of a non-Christian logic like the above, the Reformed faith can be bowled over by means of a single syllogism.

    For if we are treating logic as the self-sufficient determiner of possibility, we’d have to surrender either moral responsibility or the full sovereignty of God (See Rom 9:19 and forward). The simple fact that Scripture won’t allow us to surrender either of these to the demands of "logic" is an indication that logic as we know it must be leading us astray somehow.

    I think the way through such apparent difficulties is to understand logic as derivative and reflective (ectypal) of the original uncreated logic (archetypal) of the eternal triune God, and to remember that we should not, therefore, take logic to be the independent determiner of possibility and believability, particularly when Scripture invites us not to.

    According to Scripture, the triune God is the creator of this one-and-many universe. It is because the one-and-many God is self-consistent and self-existent that logic works. At the same time, it is because God the creator and sustainer is Himself essentially one-and-many that reality is too rich to be captured, or much less governed, by syllogisms and propositions and laws of logic.

    For example, after the flood, the Lord renews His covenant with Noah. Part of the re-creation language in that renewal goes like this: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” (Gen 8:22). This is an extraordinary utterance. It appears to be a divine utterance that is essentially and irreducibly one-and-many: In a single word and with a unified declaration, God has determined that history should be a certain way, and that way, notice, is change and variation—plurality.

    The richness of the one-and-many fabric of the created order is beyond the explanatory power of logic, but logic is a tremendously powerful tool; indeed, it is sublime, and, if understood rightly, reflective of the nature and the majesty of God. The unbeliever takes for granted the ultimacy of the universe. This is a helpful insight, yet problems emerge when logic as we know it is treated as ultimate, as self-sufficient and self-existent, particularly when we’re dealing with Scripture. Logic itself is sometimes thought to be the first and the last, that through which all things were made and in which all things hold together; but that honor belongs to Our Lord alone.

    Note: The above is liberally borrowed from:
    http://reformedforum.org/christianit...les-of-reason/

    A good read laying the foundations: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BFW3ER8

    AMR
    I take a much more direct path to logic and ontology, as odd as that will seem to you because of my verbosity and GrEnglish.

    It begins with understanding that the one true and living God is the Father, who is Spirit and whose Logos is the Son. Rhema is both objective and subjective, being the thing thought and spoken about and that which stands for the thing thought and spoken about. The Rhema is both scabbard (objective) and sword (subjective). Signified and sign. The means of intelligent rational reason and pondered comprehension and apprehension of object as subject is Logos.

    Since God alone is eternal and uncreated, there is nothing (no thing) else with phenomenal existence to think and speak about. God is the sole foundational underlying substantial objective reality of existence (hypostasis). This "who"ness underlies His ousia as the "what"ness that is His divine wealth of existence (ousia).

    So when God speaks to create, it is by His Logos that all objective reality of created existence is instantiated. This is the foundation (literally) for logic. The Father's hypostasis. His very underlying reality as eternal, uncreated self-conscious self-existence.

    This is what ties Ontology, Epistemology, Economy, and Methodology together (Being, Knowing, Doing, and "Way"ing). And there is only one way in which the Son can be the eternal and uncreated Logos (and vice versa).

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    To AMR:

    I would add for clarity that I am possibly the most anti-Aristotelian human who has ever lived, and that's not hyberbolic drama. If one human (and their influence) could be removed from the historical landscape of humanity, I would easily choose Aristotle.

    (This is relative to the subject of logic above.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    [FONT=trebuchet ms]I get the issue with "work", but am at a loss for a better term. Perhaps "property" would be a better substitute as it retains the ontological aspect.

    As to logical ordering I see no issue with confusion related to sequence if one is properly grounded on logic per se. The latter (sequence) would be confusing, given the temporal association. But, our logic is not necessarily God's logic. There is an original, uncreated logic, which is the logic of the triune God. This logic is eternal, infinite, simple, triune, and personal. It is the self-coherence of God; it is the divine, triune, self-consistency. The relationship between the logic of God and logic as we know it, such as Aristotelian logic, is complex. If we take Aristotle’s logic to be identical to God’s logic, we end up with Aristotle’s God. Sigh.

    First, logic as we know it depends upon the original logic of God. For example, God is. Therefore, it is false that God is is false. The law of the excluded middle works in the created order because God, as uncreated, eternally is. I would go so far as to say that the act of creation and the continuing providence of the triune God are the sine qua non of logic as we know it.
    Agreed, so far.

    This line of thought takes logic as we know it to be ultimate in and of itself, as self-existent.
    Isn't that just what Berkhof (AMR) just claimed?

    There are theistic philosophers who take logic as we know it to be the eternal logic of God.
    I would request to be told how this is wrong . . .

    Taking logic as we know it as ultimate is to mistake the analogue (ectye) for the original (archetype), and thus, in effect, to take the (created) world itself as ultimate and self-sufficient.
    Seems to me, this is an attempt to conflate faith in the divine and ultimate logic of God as revealed in Holy Scripture, with all the variant (non-Christian) human philosophies as adopted by mankind.


    Clearly from the point of view of a non-Christian logic like the above, the Reformed faith can be bowled over by means of a single syllogism.
    It seems you present argument against any deserved adherence to a scriptural/theistic logic, due to the philosophical errors,(of which are many!) that are ignorant of or deny a message of the reality of an eternal logic (Truth) attributed to the essence of Creator/God, cannot be reasonably held by men at all. Not even Christians.

    I believe the sole purpose of the Logos coming in flesh form, was to reveal the reasonable Truth of God to His creatures, through His Word. Successfully so! His Elect possess the reasonable, logical knowledge of the essence of their Creator/God, as revealed by His Word and the Incarnation of the Christ.

    How off track am I from what you have presented from Berkhof?

    (I would also add that I think this discussion moves beyond the STICKY, and probably deserves its own thread on ECT.)
    Last edited by Nang; December 7th, 2016, 01:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X