BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale VI - PilgrimAgain vs. 1013

BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale VI - PilgrimAgain vs. 1013

  • PilgrimAgain

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • 1013

    Votes: 7 58.3%

  • Total voters
    12
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yxboom

Guest
This has GOT TO BE the best BR to date. Just the opening statements were beyond excellent.

I specifically admire:
Originally posted by 1013
I will not be arguing this position except to point out that every Calvinist and anyone else who has a history intertwined with Classical Theism ought to tip their hats to this form of inclusivism. Why? Because pagan Greek thought has, for better or for worse, and I truly believe for better AND for worse, influenced Christian thought, and I do emphasize, as every classical theist should (though I am not one), that it happened for the better.

The TF made my heart skip a beat :D
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
As of today this Battle Royale is monumental in that it is the first between 2 TOL mods, that and the fact that I am moderating it :thumb:
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
Yea you know it dog.....when I get to moderate the BR's bring IT!
 

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
Might it possibly be a tangent as well as an attempt to poison the well?

I doubt he goes into this in his book on the subject (I don't remember him doing so). He discusses it in The God Who Risks for sure where it's more relevent.
 

Solly

BANNED
Banned
BTW Yx I found a copy of that Patey book. Sheesh, liberal twaddle, dialoguing mostly with Rahner.

:doh: oh wait...
 

Shadowx

New member
speak now or forever...hold thy peace..

speak now or forever...hold thy peace..

Pilgrimagain you said...and you emphasized "the confess with your lips part"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
because **if you confess with your lips** that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the clear prescription for salvation and as far as I am concerned it is the one essential doctrine of any Christian church.. *Let me be clear*…to be a Christian *one *must* confess with the lips* and believe in ones heart that Christ was raised from the dead.


Pilgrim..in Your church if someone can't technically confess with there lips..are they damned?


I mean..are there not any Christians amongst those who for whatever reason can't speak or who have lost there voice?

Are you really suggesting that the verse above is that "literal" and arbitrary, and that there are NO exceptions?

If someone is born without the ability to speak or looses there vocal cords and there is no way for them to "confess with there "lips" are they damned?

How about a step farther..the mentally impaired who can't grasp the things of God..who are born with a mental impairment that renders them devoid of any cognizant skills, who are completely oblivious, are they hell bound?


nice job 1013..
good point knightro..
 
C

cirisme

Guest
Originally posted by Yxboom
As of today this Battle Royale is monumental in that it is the first between 2 TOL mods, that and the fact that I am moderating it :thumb:

When did Pa become a mod?
 

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
Are you really suggesting that the verse above is that "literal" and arbitrary, and that there are NO exceptions?

Even if it's literal, it isn't stated in an absolute way.

notice that "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." is logically equivalent to the statement "if you turn the key in your car ignition, your car will start. But this statement does not imply that it is impossible to start your car without keys. You can after all hotwire a car. That is the "technicality" that Pilgrimagain acknowledged in his post.

nice job 1013.

thank you much.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Both PilgrimAgain and 1013 are both doing a magnificent job of presenting their respective views on this subject.The following are some thoughts that might be of interest.

1013 uses words from Paul from Acts 17:26 and then says,"So God arranged the nations so that men may seek him."

He then says,"according to restrictivism,the times set and the exact places for the nations work out to the opposite effect that Paul had in mind."

Perhaps the following verse teaches that both history and geography have been determined by God´s purposes toward Israel:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance,when He separated the sons of Adam,he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel"(Deut.32:8).

The Lord did that so that the nations would see Israel living in a way that God intended all men to live,and by seeing them living a righteous life the nations would then be drawn to Israel.In that way they would seek God and find Him.

"Behold,I have taught you statutes and ordinances,even as the Lord my God commanded me,that ye should do so in the land to which ye go to possess it.Keep,therefore,and do them;for this is your wisdom and your understanding IN THE SIGHT OF THE NATIONS,who shall hear all these statutes and say,Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people"(Deut.32:5,6).

So the Lord´s purpose in setting the bounds for all people was that they would see a righteous nation and be drawn to it.

But Israel proved to be unfaithful.As time went by,the nation of Israel became a hindrance to God´s purposes because "the name of God" was "blasphemed among the Gentiles through" them (Ro.2:24).

And that is why Paul says that the Lord could overlook their ignorance.

And was it not God´s purpose that the whole world should have knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ,as it was in Paul´s day.Paul wrote that in his lifetime the gospel had gone to "all the world"(Col.1:6).Therefore,that is why we read that no one can come to the Father but by Jesus Christ.

But the ministers of the New Testament have not been faithful.The gospel is not now known throughout the world.Perhaps the Lord God will not hold those responsible who have not heard the gospel.Perhaps they will only be judged by the revelation that they have received:

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,being understood by the things which are made,even His eternal power and Godhead,so they are left without excuse"(Ro.1:20).

In His grace,--Jerry
 
Last edited:

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
your take on the acts 17:26 is one that I haven't thought of. See there's an important question that may not be answered is why the arrangement of nations should have much to do with men seeking God. I thought one approach that the restrictivist might take was that the nations would be arranged in a way that they might recieve an evangelist at a certain time to here the Gospel. The problem with the possible restrictivist answer that I gave though is that there are many nations that have perished before evangelists could reach them. Whole nations from South America for instance vanished between hundreds to in excess of a thousand years ago. It would seem that your explanation would also face this problem.

Now you could say that the world of nations was the world as they knew it, the mediteranean world or the mideastern world, but we have a good reason not to take it in that fasion and that is because Paul speaks of the nations as descending from Adam and eve. So I would think that for that reason, it would have to be applied to all nations universally as they are all descended from Adam and Eve.

So if we take this as a universal statement of man thus rejecting that the working of this is via the example of israel or that the nations were arranged so that the Gospel would come to them, I'd say there there are at least two more options.

one is that it is a mystery as to how the arrangement of the nations contributes to the hope that men may respond to God. This is certainly a reasonable option.

the other option, well actually, I'd say two because I sort of combined them, is that for one, God created man to spread over the earth (as recorded in Genesis) so when men live according to the nature that God desires for them, they are more likely to turn towards him. Furthermore, at one point, humanity united itself under goals that went against God's intentions and that is the story that we read of regarding the tower of Babel. God scattered the nations so that they could not unite against him, so that they might seek him and find him. And of course the tower of babel incident happened against the intention that God had for man to fill the earth.
 

Scrimshaw

New member
I agree that both sides are doing a good job at highlighting the arguments that they feel support their positions.

I tend to judge things based on the logical fall-out of the claim. I think there are some serious logical problems with restrictivism. If it is God's soveriegn will that none should perish, but all attain everlatsting life, it stands to reason that he would soveriegnly provide a means of communicating the necessary saving knowledge to all men. Human beings are finite creatures who have very limited powers and resources. We are an ineffecient mechanism to spread the gospel to ALL men, and history itself has proven that ALL men have not heard the gospel (via human evangelists) before they died. Therefore, it is logically necessary for us to believe that we as human beings are NOT God's "only" vehicle for communicating his saving message.

For if we are the only mechanism, then God in all His infinite wisdom has failed in providing a sufficient mechanism to fulfill his desire that "none should perish". If God failed to provide the necessary means for satisfying his will, then the logical fall-out is this:

1) God is Impotent (does not have enough power to succesfully accomplish his will)

or

2) God is Unwise. (did not have enough foresight to see or understand that human beings would not be a sufficient mechanism to accomplish his will).
 
Last edited:
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
Originally posted by Scrimshaw
I agree that both sides are doing a good job at highlighting the arguments that they feel support their positions.

I tend to judge things based on the logical fall-out of the claim. I think there are some serious logical problems with restrictivism. If it is God's soveriegn will that none should perish, but all attain everlatsting life, it stands to reason that he would soveriegnly provide a means of communicating the necessary saving knowledge to all men. Human beings are finite creatures who have very limited powers and resources. We are an ineffecient mechanism to spread the gospel to ALL men, and history itself has proven that ALL men have not heard the gospel (via human evangelists) before they died. Therefore, it is logically necessary for us to believe that we as human beings are NOT God's "only" vehicle for communicating his saving message.

For if we are the only mechanism, then God in all His infinite wisdom has failed to in providing a sufficient mechanism to fulfill his desire that "none should perish". If God failed to provide the necessary means for satisfying his will, then the logical fall it is this:

1) God is Impotent (does not have enough power to succesfully accomplish his will)

or

2) God is Unwise. (did not have enough foresight to see or understand that human being would not be a sufficient mechanism to accomplish his will).

So based on logic alone, PA's position leads to some conclusions that are very devastating to Christianity.

Just to clarify: Your definition of impotent means completely powerless not somewhat powerless.

And I must also point out that we have been effected noetically by sin. That is to say our ability to reason has been effected as well as our ability to be righteous. That being said I have to point out that Scrim's appeal to logig is based on the apriori that human logic is suffeciant to understand God in a perfect way, or at the very least it places a human standard/definition of logic and wisdom on God.
 

Scrimshaw

New member
Originally posted by Pilgrimagain


Just to clarify: Your definition of impotent means completely powerless not somewhat powerless.

Yes, the word is attached to the specific subject at hand. In other words, he was "powerless" to accomplish his intended goal of "none should perish".

And I must also point out that we have been effected noetically by sin. That is to say our ability to reason has been effected as well as our ability to be righteous. That being said I have to point out that Scrim's appeal to logig is based on the apriori that human logic is suffeciant to understand God in a perfect way, or at the very least it places a human standard/definition of logic and wisdom on God.

But that is an all-elastic argument that could be stretched to stigmatize any human argument that has ever existed, including all the logical arguments that Paul made in his theologies. For I could say that your logical conclusion that were are all logically flawed cannot itself be true, for you used "logical reasoning" to come to the conclusion that all logical reasong is flawed!

If you want to claim that you base that conclusion not on human reasoning, but only on what God has clearly revealed in the Bible, then you will need to provide the chapter and verse that specifically states - "man's logical reasoning abilities have been skewed by sin". For if you cannot provide a scripture that states this, then you are coming to that conclusion based on your own human reasoning, which you have already said is skewed, thus, your argument self-destructs.
 

Scrimshaw

New member
Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
That's a slippery slope argument and does not hold.

What is? My claim that the "skewed human reasoning" idea can be used to stigmatize any argument based on human reasoning? Do you realize that the "slippery slope" fallacy is based on a "human" logic? You see, you are appealing to and using human reasoning and logic in your attempt to argue that the very same thing is invalid. Thus, your argument self-destructs and you should reconsider using it in the future.

Also, it should be noted that a "slippery slope" scenario only becomes a fallacy when the alleged consequential outcomes of the scenario are proved to be illegitimate. The consequential outcomes I have stated in my argument have not been shown to be illegitimate, thus my argument is not a fallacy.

Go here and read the proofs for more information:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top