Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is in fact water in born of flesh.
NIV John 3:5-6
(5) Jesus answered, "Very truly [literally Amen, amen] I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
(6) Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Vs. 5 speaks of two births, vs. 6 speaks of two births. Vs. 5 the first birth mentioned is "of water" the second birth is "of the spirit." Vs. 6 the first birth mentioned is "born of flesh. The second is identical to vs. 5 "born of the spirit." Why is born of the spirit mentioned twice but the first birth mentioned is different in the 2 verses? Or are they different. Where is the water? The unmistakeable indication that a human birth is imminent, is not the frequency of pains but when the "water breaks."
In post #277 I documented some of the problems with your reading 'born of water' as 'born of womb'. Unacceptable:
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

To support this reading you argue that Jesus DID allude to 'born of womb' when He referred at verse 6 to 'born of flesh'. Conceding this point would actually concede nothing but inevitability at best. I will explain. Nicodemus was confused on 'born of water'. Grasping at straws, he only found one straw - becuase the ONLY kind of birth known to him was born of womb. So he asked at verse 4,"Can a man enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born?". Verse 6 is part of Christ's REBUTTAL of Nicodemus, notifying him that he (and by extension YOU) was WAY OFF TRACK to have 'born of womb' in view here.

Moving on. The ECFs held in consensus that the material water at verse 5 is for the new birth and co-efficacious with the Spirit of God in effecting it. They defaulted to water baptism because they didn't define God as material Water. At issue here is the REASON for the water-consensus - it was due to the single-versus-double preposition structure. The Greek does not say:
.....'born of water and OF pneuma'
but rather:
.....'born of water and pneuma'
which in Greek was a critical distinction. At minimum it likely rules out two separate events (born of womb and then born of Spirit), but it also suggests that the two agents were co-equally effective in engendering the new birth. Hence the consensus of the ECFs on water-baptism. Of course I myself, in lieu of water-baptism, voted for:
.....'born of [divine] Water and Wind'.

The same Greek construct (single-preposition) occurs at Mat 3:11:
....'baptize you in [Pneuma], and fire'
Here too, if we dishonor the Greek construct like so:
....'baptize you in (immaterial) Spirit, and (material) fire'
we run into problems. The first problem is that this reading - incinerates the disciples! Jesus certainly wasn't planning to immerse them in ORDINARY material fire. Here again, the proper reading is one that regards the two elements in a strong unity and co-equal.
.....'baptize you in the Holy Wind, and Fire'
fulfilled at Pentecost when the 120 heard the rushing Wind and saw the tongues of Fire, and "They were all filled with the Holy Wind'.

And the context of Mat 3:11 confirms this reading. It speaks of the farmer's fan, that used wind/breath/air to separate wheat from the chaff, and then fire was used to burn the chaff. John called it 'unquenchable fire' (vs 12) precisely because the divine Fire is everlasting. Even hellfire is actually divine Fire at work, tormenting the prisoners.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
JAL, you continue to argue materialism vs immaterialism in every post when the problems with your philosophy preceed that point of your argument.

You still have yet to scripturally justify any of the following claims you have made:

1. God arises from pre-existing matter -
2. God evolves a character of holiness
3. God is finite
4. God lacks foreknowledge
5. The Holy Spirit acts as God’s immune system
6. God needed to create man

Since materialism is your guiding light and we have already established that science is the discipline utilized for measuring the material world, you have yet to provide any scientific evidence to support any of the following claims you have made:

1. 100% of matter has free will
2. Matter is sentient
3. Matter can group together and spontaneously become self-aware without any outside cause
4. Matter that has suddenly become self aware then has the ability to fully control or manipulate other matter at will.
5. Matter has no origin

A summary of my answers to the first six, as explained throughout this thread:

1. God arises from pre-existing matter - see dozens of posts on this thread showing biblical evidence for materialism. If God is material, then we're left with preexisting matter.
2. God evolves a character of holiness - Good people don't expect praise for innate characteristics. Also innate, immutable holiness construes the Incarnation as a logical impossibility.
3. God is finite - Infintude is self-contradictory gibberish and contradicts other doctrines such as limited atonement. And impugns His goodness - why would an infinitely self-sufficient being create a world where babes can starve to death?
4. God lacks foreknowledge. Divine foreknowledge contradicts divine free will, and impugns God's goodness for having made Adam, Eve, and Lucifer foreknowing their Fall.
5. The Holy Spirit acts as God’s immune system - The first fully viable solution to the contradictions caused by defining holiness as an innate characteristic.
6. God needed to create man - The first seamless theodicy and thus the ONLY plenal defense of God's goodness in church history.

The other five points are corolllaries although your exact wording, in some of them, is conspicuously exaggerated and misleading.

Until you can successfully provide evidence of the aforementioned problems with your theory, materialism vs immaterialism, Holy Breath vs Holy Spirit, and the problem of evil are just noise, and frankly a bit of a red herring to distract from these much bigger issues.
I have provided evidence - but you're in serious error to suggest that DIRECT evidence is the only viable kind. For 2,000 years, traditional theology has proven itself ill-equipped to provide coherent solutions to /explanations of a variety of problems such as the Incarnation, Original Sin, Theodicy, Regeneration, Sanctification, Prophetic Inspiration, Creation, Miracles, the mind-body problem, the nature of heaven, and the nature of angels. Any theological system that can solve all these problems (and apparent contradictions) in one fell swoop is, arguably, hands-down more viable than the alternatives - regardless of the amount of DIRECT evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
He makes His angels immaterial spirits? Winds is a more natural fit because wind and fire go together - try to start a fire without air. Why mention material fire in the first place if the writer is wanting us to read 'immaterial spirits'? This attempt to shove some immaterial Platonic fantasy right into the middle of the verse - without any immaterial basis in the context - is precisely the same error made at John 3:5. The context speaks of MATTER. Therefore the natural reading is MATERIALISTIC. Anything else is pure fantasy - you're welcome to believe it, but don't pretend it has any basis in Scripture.
Who said anything about material/immaterial. You are the only one talking about that. Try forgetting about this obsession with material/immaterial and reading what I actually said.
Here's what Ezekiel documented in his first chapter:
"The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it. 14The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning."
The main point here, is that anyway you slice it, the dynamics of Ezekiel 1 scream materialism. Lightning, fire, thrones, wheels, crystal, voices, creatures, wings, fiery torsos (etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,etc, etc).
Ezekiel repeated this point a couple of times: "When the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels". Again, spirit is a bad translation. An immaterial spirit couldn't hoist the wheels. As I have said, all material souls can move (self-propel) by free will (which is an EMPIRICAL fact of human experience) - and angels aren't constrained by gravity. On the basis of that empirical fact, it is easy to see how material angels managed to lift the wheels.
Whereas here, as everywhere else, immaterialism consigns us to the contradiction of an intangible substance attempting to push/pull matter.
More obsession with material/immaterial which I have not been discussing.
I said God could do these things and then you agreed with me that He can do pretty much anything. Not sure why you think this statement is some big rebuttal.
I never said that all donkeys speak, nor that my arguments extrapolate apodictically. I'm just continuing to show in what direction the biblical data is overwhelmingly pointing. Again, you're free to believe in immaterialism - but please don't pretend that such a bizarre concept originated in biblical exegesis.
More obsession. Evidently the only thing you want to talk about is material/immaterial. I have found it helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. I explained my reference to talking donkeys and sons from stone. Try reading the post again without trying to force a material vs. immaterial argument into it.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In post #277 I documented some of the problems with your reading 'born of water' as 'born of womb'. Unacceptable:
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?
To support this reading you argue that Jesus DID allude to 'born of womb' when He referred at verse 6 to 'born of flesh'. Conceding this point would actually concede nothing but inevitability at best. I will explain. Nicodemus was confused on 'born of water'. Grasping at straws, he only found one straw - becuase the ONLY kind of birth known to him was born of womb. So he asked at verse 4,"Can a man enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born?". Verse 6 is part of Christ's REBUTTAL of Nicodemus, notifying him that he (and by extension YOU) was WAY OFF TRACK to have 'born of womb' in view here.
Nicodemus was not confused about "born of water" he was confused about a second birth.

Joh 3:3-6
(3) Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
(4) "How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"
(5) Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
(6) Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
I see a parallel between vs. 5 and vs. 6, you don't. You have presented some arguments but they are not compelling to me.
Moving on. The ECFs held in consensus that the material water at verse 5 is for the new birth and co-efficacious with the Spirit of God in effecting it. They defaulted to water baptism because they didn't define God as material Water. At issue here is the REASON for the water-consensus - it was due to the single-versus-double preposition structure. The Greek does not say:
.....'born of water and OF pneuma'
but rather:
.....'born of water and pneuma'
which in Greek was a critical distinction. At minimum it likely rules out two separate events (born of womb and then born of Spirit), but it also suggests that the two agents were co-equally effective in engendering the new birth. Hence the consensus of the ECFs on water-baptism. Of course I myself, in lieu of water-baptism, voted for:
.....'born of [divine] Water and Wind'.
Where does "born of flesh" figure in born of water and spirit?
The same Greek construct (single-preposition) occurs at Mat 3:11:
....'baptize you in [Pneuma], and fire'
Here too, if we dishonor the Greek construct like so:
....'baptize you in (immaterial) Spirit, and (material) fire'
we run into problems. The first problem is that this reading - incinerates the disciples! Jesus certainly wasn't planning to immerse them in ORDINARY material fire. Here again, the proper reading is one that regards the two elements in a strong unity and co-equal.
.....'baptize you in the Holy Wind, and Fire'
fulfilled at Pentecost when the 120 heard the rushing Wind and saw the tongues of Fire, and "They were all filled with the Holy Wind'.

And the context of Mat 3:11 confirms this reading. It speaks of the farmer's fan, that used wind/breath/air to separate wheat from the chaff, and then fire was used to burn the chaff. John called it 'unquenchable fire' (vs 12) precisely because the divine Fire is everlasting. Even hellfire is actually divine Fire at work, tormenting the prisoners
.
From Bible.org Dr. Dan Wallace, senior editor, has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years.
In short, it appears the presence of a single preposition with multiple objects as requiring a close conceptual unity that would not be present if two prepositions were used should not be used as an exegetical argument giving much, if any, weight in interpretive decisions in the New Testament.
Conclusion
While not an exhaustive study, these examples should give one pause in assigning exegetical linkage or distinction when interpreting objects of prepositions based on single or multiple preposition constructions. Anyone who has seriously tried to translate the Old Testament into English has felt the tension between being faithful to the Hebrew or Aramaic text and the very unnatural English expression that can be created by strings of multiple prepositions. The decision to leave them all or omit some is usually due to translation philosophy and how much the natural English is strained. When omission is done it is not to create a special conceptual unity to communicate the same event or category but to express a concept in natural idiom. Even if a translator or author would have a native Semitic background he would probably want to the best of his ability get the text into natural form of the receptor language whatever it was. It is hoped that the raising of this red flag would spur further research and discussion to better understand how prepositions are used in the New Testament and what they do or do not communicate. As A.T. Robertson cautioned, freedom rather than rule seems to govern this aspect of Greek syntax.
Single Prepositions With Multiple Objects In Matthew 3:11 And John 3:5: An Exegetical Argument Running Amok?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Who said anything about material/immaterial. You are the only one talking about that. Try forgetting about this obsession with material/immaterial and reading what I actually said.

More obsession with material/immaterial which I have not been discussing.

More obsession. Evidently the only thing you want to talk about is material/immaterial. I have found it helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. I explained my reference to talking donkeys and sons from stone. Try reading the post again without trying to force a material vs. immaterial argument into it.
Ok, in your view, is a spirit material? Or immaterial? (Please don't tell me some gibberish about it being both as that would be like saying my computer is both material and immaterial). And if you agree that a living pneuma is material, why would you be so opposed to the concept of a living wind/breath?

Is this linguistic camouflage - the use of language so nebulous that no one can be sure what you're really saying? As to avoid being charged with contradictions? We're about 300 posts deep into this thread and yet:
(1) You keep arguing against my materialism.
(2) When I deduce from this that you believe the soul to be immaterial, you seem to deny immaterialism.

Are you playing some kind of semantic game to avoid being charged with contradiction? This is the second time I've raised this issue and I STILL don't see where you've clarified in what sense you are NOT an immaterialist. Again, as i asked in the earlier post, are you hiding behind some ambiguous nuance of the term immaterialism (even though, by this time, you know good and well what I mean by it). (Sigh) What does the word immaterialism, as I've used it on this thread, convey to YOU? Was I not clear? Would you prefer a different term such as dualism? Let's not get saddled with semantic games here.

I'm trying to believe the best but you're not making it easy. Earlier I asked you to tell me what kind of biblical proof that YOU would consider to be hard evidence for material souls. You ignored this question - and for good reason, because, as far as I can see, NOTHING in the Bible would convince you. You've made it impossible for God to convey such information to you because, as far as I can see, you're sold, for extra-biblical reasons, on a Platonic metaphysics. You MIGHT accept materialism if the Bible actually used that word - but of course you can't in all fairness demand that word since it doesn't use the word 'immaterial' either.

So by mere hand-waving (i.e. "I wasn't even talking about immaterialism"), you've dismissed dozens of posts that I've provided with biblical evidence of materialism. When you finally do come to admit that you DO believe the soul to be immaterial, will you go back and address all those posts? I doubt it.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In post #277 I documented some of the problems with your reading 'born of water' as 'born of womb'. Unacceptable:
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?
To support this reading you argue that Jesus DID allude to 'born of womb' when He referred at verse 6 to 'born of flesh'. Conceding this point would actually concede nothing but inevitability at best. I will explain. Nicodemus was confused on 'born of water'. Grasping at straws, he only found one straw - becuase the ONLY kind of birth known to him was born of womb. So he asked at verse 4,"Can a man enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born?". Verse 6 is part of Christ's REBUTTAL of Nicodemus, notifying him that he (and by extension YOU) was WAY OFF TRACK to have 'born of womb' in view here.
Nicodemus was not confused about "born of water" he was confused about a second birth.

Joh 3:3-6
(3) Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
(4) "How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"
(5) Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
(6) Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
I see a parallel between vs. 5 and vs. 6, you don't. You have presented some arguments but they are not compelling to me.

Where does "born of flesh" figure in born of water and spirit?
The same Greek construct (single-preposition) occurs at Mat 3:11:
....'baptize you in [Pneuma], and fire'
Here too, if we dishonor the Greek construct like so:
....'baptize you in (immaterial) Spirit, and (material) fire'
we run into problems. The first problem is that this reading - incinerates the disciples! Jesus certainly wasn't planning to immerse them in ORDINARY material fire. Here again, the proper reading is one that regards the two elements in a strong unity and co-equal.
.....'baptize you in the Holy Wind, and Fire'
fulfilled at Pentecost when the 120 heard the rushing Wind and saw the tongues of Fire, and "They were all filled with the Holy Wind'.

And the context of Mat 3:11 confirms this reading. It speaks of the farmer's fan, that used wind/breath/air to separate wheat from the chaff, and then fire was used to burn the chaff. John called it 'unquenchable fire' (vs 12) precisely because the divine Fire is everlasting. Even hellfire is actually divine Fire at work, tormenting the prisoners
.
From Bible.org Dr. Dan Wallace, senior editor, has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years.
In short, it appears the presence of a single preposition with multiple objects as requiring a close conceptual unity that would not be present if two prepositions were used should not be used as an exegetical argument giving much, if any, weight in interpretive decisions in the New Testament.
Conclusion
While not an exhaustive study, these examples should give one pause in assigning exegetical linkage or distinction when interpreting objects of prepositions based on single or multiple preposition constructions. Anyone who has seriously tried to translate the Old Testament into English has felt the tension between being faithful to the Hebrew or Aramaic text and the very unnatural English expression that can be created by strings of multiple prepositions. The decision to leave them all or omit some is usually due to translation philosophy and how much the natural English is strained. When omission is done it is not to create a special conceptual unity to communicate the same event or category but to express a concept in natural idiom. Even if a translator or author would have a native Semitic background he would probably want to the best of his ability get the text into natural form of the receptor language whatever it was. It is hoped that the raising of this red flag would spur further research and discussion to better understand how prepositions are used in the New Testament and what they do or do not communicate. As A.T. Robertson cautioned, freedom rather than rule seems to govern this aspect of Greek syntax.
Single Prepositions With Multiple Objects In Matthew 3:11 And John 3:5: An Exegetical Argument Running Amok?
For starters, I've articulated five objections to your 'seamless' reading. It's not seamless. So even if you can provide some (weak) rejoinders to one or two of those five objections, it's incredibly weak compared to my materialism reading faced with NONE of those objections. And that's really all I'm trying to do at this point of the thread - I'm showing that time and again, materialism harmonizes far more seamlessly with the text than any non-material reading can fare.

My boss has got me tied up right now...
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In post #277 I documented some of the problems with your reading 'born of water' as 'born of womb'. Unacceptable:
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?
To support this reading you argue that Jesus DID allude to 'born of womb' when He referred at verse 6 to 'born of flesh'. Conceding this point would actually concede nothing but inevitability at best. I will explain. Nicodemus was confused on 'born of water'. Grasping at straws, he only found one straw - becuase the ONLY kind of birth known to him was born of womb. So he asked at verse 4,"Can a man enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born?". Verse 6 is part of Christ's REBUTTAL of Nicodemus, notifying him that he (and by extension YOU) was WAY OFF TRACK to have 'born of womb' in view here.
Nicodemus was not confused about "born of water" he was confused about a second birth.

Joh 3:3-6
(3) Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
(4) "How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"
(5) Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
(6) Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
I see a parallel between vs. 5 and vs. 6, you don't. You have presented some arguments but they are not compelling to me.

Where does "born of flesh" figure in born of water and spirit?
You tell me. What does 'born of water' mean, in your view? I thought you were regarding all three of these as the same thing:
(1) born of flesh
(2) born of water
(3) born of womb.
If that's not what you meant, please feel free to clarify.


The same Greek construct (single-preposition) occurs at Mat 3:11:
....'baptize you in [Pneuma], and fire'
Here too, if we dishonor the Greek construct like so:
....'baptize you in (immaterial) Spirit, and (material) fire'
we run into problems. The first problem is that this reading - incinerates the disciples! Jesus certainly wasn't planning to immerse them in ORDINARY material fire. Here again, the proper reading is one that regards the two elements in a strong unity and co-equal.
.....'baptize you in the Holy Wind, and Fire'
fulfilled at Pentecost when the 120 heard the rushing Wind and saw the tongues of Fire, and "They were all filled with the Holy Wind'.

And the context of Mat 3:11 confirms this reading. It speaks of the farmer's fan, that used wind/breath/air to separate wheat from the chaff, and then fire was used to burn the chaff. John called it 'unquenchable fire' (vs 12) precisely because the divine Fire is everlasting. Even hellfire is actually divine Fire at work, tormenting the prisoners
.
From Bible.org Dr. Dan Wallace, senior editor, has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years.
In short, it appears the presence of a single preposition with multiple objects as requiring a close conceptual unity that would not be present if two prepositions were used should not be used as an exegetical argument giving much, if any, weight in interpretive decisions in the New Testament.
Conclusion
While not an exhaustive study, these examples should give one pause in assigning exegetical linkage or distinction when interpreting objects of prepositions based on single or multiple preposition constructions. Anyone who has seriously tried to translate the Old Testament into English has felt the tension between being faithful to the Hebrew or Aramaic text and the very unnatural English expression that can be created by strings of multiple prepositions. The decision to leave them all or omit some is usually due to translation philosophy and how much the natural English is strained. When omission is done it is not to create a special conceptual unity to communicate the same event or category but to express a concept in natural idiom. Even if a translator or author would have a native Semitic background he would probably want to the best of his ability get the text into natural form of the receptor language whatever it was. It is hoped that the raising of this red flag would spur further research and discussion to better understand how prepositions are used in the New Testament and what they do or do not communicate. As A.T. Robertson cautioned, freedom rather than rule seems to govern this aspect of Greek syntax.
Single Prepositions With Multiple Objects In Matthew 3:11 And John 3:5: An Exegetical Argument Running Amok?
[/QUOTE]
Several points here. Please take any opposing views here with a grain of salt. John 3:5 has been a thorn in the side of faith-alone theologians for 2,000 years - it's quite an embarrassment that they are still wrestling with this passage. Just take a look at the Conclusion you cited - look how much emphasis is place on Hebrew and Aramaic! Again, John 3 is the Son of God's keynote speech on salvation - and it's written in Greek! On a speech this crucial, we can hardly let Hebrew grammar speak authoritatively for us on the Greek grammar.

So again, there will probably be some bias here (and one evangelical scholar admitted this to be a tendency among evangelicals dealing with problem passages) because this passage IS a real problem for evangelicals. For example, if you look at what these scholars are saying on this issue, it tends to take this format, 'Often they used two prepositions when they could have used one.' So? That itself is NOT a commentary on the significance of those cases where they used ONE preposition.

This is a crucial speech. Therefore if Jesus had WANTED to clearly convey two separate acts (born of womb and born of Spirit), it would have been MORE appropriate to use two separate prepositions. Was the Holy Breath, when inspiring the writers, too confused by Hebrew and Aramaic grammar to steer corrrectly here (as these scholars would LIKE us to believe) ????? What He wrote is not reliable?

Again the frequency (or infrequency) of 2 prepositoins is not itself a commentary on one 1 preposition. Suppose for instance a man buys a car. We conclude he needs one. He then buys a second car. Does that disprove our original conclusion?

It's pretty significant that at least SOME evangelical scholars are admitting the 1-preposition construct to be a real issue - because given human nature, there is a tendency to refrain from admitting exegetical embarrassments.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ok, in your view, is a spirit material? Or immaterial? (Please don't tell me some gibberish about it being both as that would be like saying my computer is both material and immaterial). And if you agree that a living pneuma is material, why would you be so opposed to the concept of a living wind/breath?
Is this linguistic camouflage - the use of language so nebulous that no one can be sure what you're really saying? As to avoid being charged with contradictions? We're about 300 posts deep into this thread and yet:
(1) You keep arguing against my materialism.
(2) When I deduce from this that you believe the soul to be immaterial, you seem to deny immaterialism.
Please show me where I have ever argued about materialism/immaterialism?
Are you playing some kind of semantic game to avoid being charged with contradiction? This is the second time I've raised this issue and I STILL don't see where you've clarified in what sense you are NOT an immaterialist. Again, as i asked in the earlier post, are you hiding behind some ambiguous nuance of the term immaterialism (even though, by this time, you know good and well what I mean by it). (Sigh) What does the word immaterialism, as I've used it on this thread, convey to YOU? Was I not clear? Would you prefer a different term such as dualism? Let's not get saddled with semantic games here.
I'm trying to believe the best but you're not making it easy. Earlier I asked you to tell me what kind of biblical proof that YOU would consider to be hard evidence for material souls. You ignored this question - and for good reason, because, as far as I can see, NOTHING in the Bible would convince you. You've made it impossible for God to convey such information to you because, as far as I can see, you're sold, for extra-biblical reasons, on a Platonic metaphysics. You MIGHT accept materialism if the Bible actually used that word - but of course you can't in all fairness demand that word since it doesn't use the word 'immaterial' either.
So by mere hand-waving (i.e. "I wasn't even talking about immaterialism"), you've dismissed dozens of posts that I've provided with biblical evidence of materialism. When you finally do come to admit that you DO believe the soul to be immaterial, will you go back and address all those posts? I doubt it
.
I'm not the only one here who noted that you try to make every post about materialism/immaterialism. Please show me where I have ever argued about materialism/immaterialism?
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ok, in your view, is a spirit material? Or immaterial? (Please don't tell me some gibberish about it being both as that would be like saying my computer is both material and immaterial). And if you agree that a living pneuma is material, why would you be so opposed to the concept of a living wind/breath?
Is this linguistic camouflage - the use of language so nebulous that no one can be sure what you're really saying? As to avoid being charged with contradictions? We're about 300 posts deep into this thread and yet:
(1) You keep arguing against my materialism.
(2) When I deduce from this that you believe the soul to be immaterial, you seem to deny immaterialism.

Please show me where I have ever argued about materialism/immaterialism?
Are you playing some kind of semantic game to avoid being charged with contradiction? This is the second time I've raised this issue and I STILL don't see where you've clarified in what sense you are NOT an immaterialist. Again, as i asked in the earlier post, are you hiding behind some ambiguous nuance of the term immaterialism (even though, by this time, you know good and well what I mean by it). (Sigh) What does the word immaterialism, as I've used it on this thread, convey to YOU? Was I not clear? Would you prefer a different term such as dualism? Let's not get saddled with semantic games here.
I'm trying to believe the best but you're not making it easy. Earlier I asked you to tell me what kind of biblical proof that YOU would consider to be hard evidence for material souls. You ignored this question - and for good reason, because, as far as I can see, NOTHING in the Bible would convince you. You've made it impossible for God to convey such information to you because, as far as I can see, you're sold, for extra-biblical reasons, on a Platonic metaphysics. You MIGHT accept materialism if the Bible actually used that word - but of course you can't in all fairness demand that word since it doesn't use the word 'immaterial' either.
So by mere hand-waving (i.e. "I wasn't even talking about immaterialism"), you've dismissed dozens of posts that I've provided with biblical evidence of materialism. When you finally do come to admit that you DO believe the soul to be immaterial, will you go back and address all those posts? I doubt it
.
I'm not the only one here who noted that you try to make every post about materialism/immaterialism. Please show me where I have ever argued about materialism/immaterialism?
Really? You're this much determined to play semantic games? I haven't been accusing you of using the WORD immaterial - I've been accusing you of rejecting materialism which BY EXTRAPOLATION would make you an immaterialist. Sample exchange is post #222 (and I don't have the time to comb this entire thread for all the examples).
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?
That's just ONE example of a very explicit exchange but there are plenty more that I could cite, had I the time.

But more than that - we've been debating John 3:5 for quite a while now where you've stood staunchly opposed to my materialistic reading as 'born of [divine] Water and Wind'.

I'm still scratching my head on this because verse 8 says, 'The Wind blows where it WANTS to' which entails (as I've already intimated):
(1) This is consisent with Christ naming the Third Person 'The Holy Breath/Wind' at John 20:22 (with scholarly consensus on that point).
(2) This Wind is a Person because only conscious beings travel where they WANT to.
(3) This Wind has volition (because traveling by free will is an act of volition).
(4) This Wind (continuing versus 8) regenerates men, 'so it is of everyone born of the Wind'
In a nutshell, if you don't see that John 3 serves up materialism on a silver platter, it's clear to me that NOTHING in the Bible could possibly convince you.

You say I keep talking about materialism. Well duh - that's because we keep talking about John 3 !!!!
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Really? You're this much determined to play semantic games? I haven't been accusing you of using the WORD immaterial - I've been accusing you of rejecting materialism which BY EXTRAPOLATION would make you an immaterialist. Sample exchange is post #222 (and I don't have the time to comb this entire thread for all the examples).
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?
That's just ONE example of a very explicit exchange but there are plenty more that I could cite, had I the time.
But more than that - we've been debating John 3:5 for quite a while now where you've stood staunchly opposed to my materialistic reading as 'born of [divine] Water and Wind'.
I'm still scratching my head on this because verse 8 says, 'The Wind blows where it WANTS to' which entails (as I've already intimated):
(1) This is consisent with Christ naming the Third Person 'The Holy Breath/Wind' at John 20:22 (with scholarly consensus on that point).
(2) This Wind is a Person because only conscious beings travel where they WANT to.
(3) This Wind has volition (because traveling by free will is an act of volition).
(4) This Wind (continuing versus 8) regenerates men, 'so it is of everyone born of the Wind'
In a nutshell, if you don't see that John 3 serves up materialism on a silver platter, it's clear to me that NOTHING in the Bible could possibly convince you.
You say I keep talking about materialism. Well duh - that's because we keep talking about John 3 !!!!
Well duh I still have not been arguing about materialism vs immaterialism. I wonder if the phrase "The wind blows wherever it pleases." could be a figure of speech like trees rejoicing and speaking in Isa 14 and mountains and hills skipping in Psa 114. I could be wrong but to my knowledge trees don't rejoice and speak and mountains and hills do not skip.
Isa 14:8
(8) Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
Psa 114:4
(4) The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.
Psa 114:6
(6) Ye mountains, that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills, like lambs?
As for the wind being a person and going where it wants to, meteorologists tell us that high and low pressure areas dictate which way the wind blows. Thus weathermen can forecast the winds in an area based on the movement of high pressure areas.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well duh I still have not been arguing about materialism vs immaterialism.
Really - after post #222 - you're still going to maintain that you haven't been debating materialism vs immaterialism?

Can anyone make sense of this?

Since I certainly can't, I'm not gong to change my tune.

I wonder if the phrase "The wind blows wherever it pleases" could be a figure of speech like trees rejoicing and speaking in Isa 14 and mountains and hills skipping in Psa 114.
Well duh - only an immaterialist would find any need to raise that question! As I already pointed out!

I could be wrong but to my knowledge trees don't rejoice and speak and mountains and hills do not skip.
Correct. In an immaterialist metaphysics, such things are pretty unlikely. But when a soul can assume ANY MATERIAL SHAPE (as I've been insisting for some 300 posts now if you didn't catch it) - and when moreover ALL MATTER IS DEFINED AS CONSCIOUS - there is nothing unsurprising about it.

These things I keep pointing out over and over and over again - and yet you have the gall to suggest that I'm the one who is failing to read your posts! Are you reading any of mine?

I wonder if the phrase "The wind blows wherever it pleases" could be a figure of speech like trees rejoicing and speaking in Isa 14 and mountains and hills skipping in Psa 114
So much for a seamless reading of John 3 - the Son's keynote speech on salvation. You can't have it both ways. You can't open such a can of worms and still pretend to have found a seamless reading of the passage. You don't see why this is a can of worms?
(1) The most significant term in the whole passage, other than 'Father' and 'Son', is the word Pneuma. You're asking me to believe that Pneuma, at verse 5, means Spirit 'born of water and Spirit', but then at verse 8 it suddenly reverts back to its usual meaning (wind). Is the Son of God determined to leave us confused about salvation? Of all speeches, He chooses THIS one to equivocate?
(2) But the equivocation only gets worse because, in your view, it even happens in the same verse. Thus you take the first half of verse 8 as, 'The wind [pneuma] blows where it pleases' and then the second half as 'so it is with everyone born of the Spirit [penuma]." As a matter of fact, in my early days, before I became a materialist, I found the whole passage hopelessly confusing. Born of water? Born of Spirit? Blowing wind? Huh? To the extent that, at one point, I had real concerns as to whether water baptism was necessary for salvation.
(3) Still gets worse. If this 'wind' is a 'figure of speech' (to use your term), then it allows us - even in didactic texts - to regard that criticial term Pneuma as a METAPHOR for a member of the Godhead. This literally undermines the foundations of Trinitarianism (as I told you at least twice already), because it exempts us from any further obligation to regard Pneuma as a literal third person. In other words, perhaps the term Pneuma is ALWAYS a mere metaphor for the activity of Father and Son. You really want to go there? This is your seamless reading? I mean, once you call it a metaphor, you can't very well say 'it's a metaphor for the Holy Pneuma' because, again, how is that seamless? How can pneuma be a plausible metaphor for pneuma? Are the scriptures bent on confusing us?
(4) The gospels and epistles seem to be about 99% didactic (as opposed to metaphors), except on occasions of obvious disclaimers in the text, e.g. 'The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a mustard seed." Christ's speech in John 3 doesn't initiate with disclaimers.


I find it almost equally irresponsible, from an exegetical standpoint, to regard the following passage as metaphor:
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (Jn 6:51).

The second half of the verse refers to LITERAL FLESH to be nailed to the cross. So we're supposed to read the first half as metaphor? How is that seamless? Is the Son set on confusing us? I remember many years ago, looking up this verse in several evangelical commentaries. After a while, I turned away in disgust. All of them skated over the issue, pretending it was a non-issue. Platonic bias is the ONLY possible explanation for glossing over this passage as a non-issue.


To be clear, I don't think He's referring to His earthly protoplasm at Jn 6:51. The divine Word took on a fleshy texture per Jn 1:14 as to incarnate Himself (merge with a zygote in Mary's womb). Thus the flesh nailed to the cross was both His earthly flesh and divine Flesh. He feeds us the divine Word/Flesh, for example in the form of Living Bread (see the Last Supper).


Isa 14:8
(8) Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
Psa 114:4
(4) The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.
Psa 114:6
(6) Ye mountains, that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills, like lambs?
As already indicated several times, I don't include all books of the Bible in the list of 99% didactic texts. But again, in a materialist metaphysics, there is nothing terribly anomalous about angels (or God Himself) animating mountains, trees - or the 'inanimate' objects themselves awakening to do the same by divine influence. This does not mean that immature believers actually WITNESSED such events, but prophets probably did. In Psalm 18, for example, David witnessed a LOT of physical dynamics that immature believers would never see.

Paul was well aware of such dynamics. "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ" (1Cor 10).

Baptized into the pillar of cloud and fire? Sounds a lot like Pentecost to me. I can easily demonstrate that any attempt to dismiss this passage as metaphor doesn't hold much water exegetically (pardon the pun). Well, actually I must give the credit to Howard Ervin's insightful analysis of the passage.

As for the wind being a person and going where it wants to, meteorologists tell us that high and low pressure areas dictate which way the wind blows. Thus weathermen can forecast the winds in an area based on the movement of high pressure areas.
Meteorologist also tell us that hurricanes, storms, and tornadoes are somewhat unpredictable, for example in size, quantity, abundance, duration, mobility (etc). There's plenty of room here for angelic intervention. But this is not really a crucial point, as my position hardly stands or falls on it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
... Correct. In an immaterialist metaphysics, such things are pretty unlikely. But when a soul can assume ANY MATERIAL SHAPE (as I've been insisting for some 300 posts now if you didn't catch it) - and when moreover ALL MATTER IS DEFINED AS CONSCIOUS - there is nothing unsurprising about it....
Now I understand where you are coming from. All matter is conscious including, mountains, hill and trees. There is nothing spiritual, virtually nothing SPAM-Fig, i.e. symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, figurative.
I remember many years ago, looking up this verse in several evangelical commentaries. After a while, I turned away in disgust. All of them skated over the issue, pretending it was a non-issue. Platonic bias is the ONLY possible explanation for glossing over this passage as a non-issue.
Platonic bias is you go to answer for everything which contradicts you. There has been a long line of people who claim that the church and all the scholars have been wrong for 2000 years and that they alone have the only true truth, JW, LDS, WWCG, OP UPCI, UU, INC etc. and now JAL.

...Meteorologist also tell us that hurricanes, storms, and tornadoes are somewhat unpredictable, for example in size, quantity, abundance, duration, mobility (etc). There's plenty of room here for angelic intervention. But this is not really a crucial point, as my position hardly stands or falls on it.
See my first reply above. Do not expect any further replies.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now I understand where you are coming from. All matter is conscious including, mountains, hill and trees. There is nothing spiritual, virtually nothing SPAM-Fig, i.e. symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, figurative.

Platonic bias is you go to answer for everything which contradicts you. There has been a long line of people who claim that the church and all the scholars have been wrong for 2000 years and that they alone have the only true truth, JW, LDS, WWCG, OP UPCI, UU, INC etc. and now JAL.


See my first reply above. Do not expect any further replies.

Unsurprising - an appeal to the authority of 2,000 years of man-made (read here Platonic) traditions without a shred of hard biblical evidence to back up that position.

And it's pure intellectual dishonesty to suggest that I do nothing but complain about Plato. For example I levied at least 9 cogent objections to your reading of John 3:5, aside from numerous arguments and verses adduced in support of my reading.

Clearly you have no solid rebuttals to my objections. In fact I don't think you managed to produce even one cogent objection to my reading of john 3:5, as I recall. The most you seemed able to say is stuff like, 'I don't believe that material winds can have personality' which is just a clear expression of Platonic bias, nothing more. In a debate, you can't just assume what is to be proven. Yes, you'll keep hearing from me about Plato if the only foothold you can find to stand on is a regurgitation of Platonic bias.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There has been a long line of people who claim that the church and all the scholars have been wrong for 2000 years and that they alone have the only true truth, JW, LDS, WWCG, OP UPCI, UU, INC etc. and now JAL.
I'm so weary of the ad hominem nonsense. Every organization believes that they alone are right, and every individual who has an opinion believes himself right about it. When the first Protestant Reformer (whoever truly was the first) formed his revolutionary opinions, he believed that he alone was right - regardless whether the last 1500 years of theologians disagreed with him. Does that make him wrong?

The motto of the Reformation was 'Reformed, and always reforming." The very TITLE of this thread is a call to reform.

Your response is also misleading for several reasons. First you have the gall to gratuitously associate me with organizations that do not accept the Nicence Creed, the divnity of Christ, and the Trinity - nonChristians in other words. That's pure ad hominem. Secondly you conveniently overlook the fact that I AM NOT ALONE IN SEVERAL OF MY CONCLUSIONS. On numerous occasions I've pointed out, for example, church fathers like Tertullian (200. A.D.) as a staunch materialist, and several other church fathers who upheld the materiality of angels, not to mention Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (one of the most esteemed evangelical seminaries of the past century). And that's just a small sample of the historical scholarship supporting key points of my thinking.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now I understand where you are coming from. All matter is conscious including, mountains, hill and trees.
Yes. Although I generally presume them to be negligibly conscious and thus inanimate matter (as stated probably a half-dozen times on this thread already), my metaphysics is flexible enough to allow for tons of exceptions, for example temporary exceptions. For instance if God wanted to temporarily awaken mountains and hills unto full consciousness such that they skipped and leaped for joy, He could so. The point is that you shouldn't PRESUME all such passages to be NECESSARILY of poetic genre, especially if you're trying to tout them as an objection to my hermeneutic.

My metaphysics is INCREDIBLY flexible. For example, it could very well be that ALL so-called ordinary winds are angels positioned by God to function like inanimate matter. And where Scripture speaks of stars falling from heaven, I've occassionally wondered whether the stars themselves are angels.

There is nothing spiritual....
Nothing immaterial.
...virtually nothing SPAM-Fig, i.e. symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, figurative.
That's actually a different kind of claim. Again, flexibility. There is surely some poetry, metaphor, and symbolism in Scripture, although we must be careful not to presume too much.

Platonic bias is you go to answer for everything which contradicts you.
What have you found to contradict me? Nothing. You seem to be suggesting that your landing upon a few possibly-poetic verses is a brilliant discovery (one I supposedly never considered) that brings my entire theological system crashing down into ruins. (Sigh) As a strawman artist par excellence, you conveniently keep ignoring the fact that I've stated, perhaps a dozen times on this thread, that I only classify a select set of books as 99% literal/didactic such as the gospels, epistles, and history books. Psalms and prophets do contain plenty of literal material in my opinion, but I'm a little uneasy about rating them at 99%. I'm even more uneasy about Proverbs, Job, and Song of Solomon.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Does the blowing wind have 72 personal attributes?
Let's have a look at Ezekiel 37. First, let's recap. I proposed the first seamless reading of John 3:5 in church history, as far as I know.
"Unless a man is born of [divine] Water and Wind, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
This seamlessly accords with the faith-alone salvation postulated at verse 16, because God Himself provides the needed Water and Wind automatically, even when unbeknownst to us. The two Greek words are Water (Hudor) and Wind (Pneuma). We find these same two words in the Greek OT at Ezekiel 36, "I will sprinkle clean Water [Hudor] on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols...And I will put my Wind/Breath [Pneuma] in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."

Am I correct to tie John 3:5 to Ezekiel 36? Several noted evangelical scholars regard John 3:5 as a direct reference to Ezekiel 36. Examples of such scholarship would include: Expositors Greek New Testament on Jn 3:5; Albert Barnes’ Notes on Jn 3:10; Ellicott’s Commentary on Jn 3:5; John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Jn 3:5; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown on Jn 3:5; William Kelly Major Works Commentary on Jn 3:5; Lange Commentary on Jn 3:5; Matthew Poole's Commentary on Jn 3:5; Meyer’s NT Commentary on Jn 3:5; People's New Testament on Jn 3:3; Pulpit Commentary on Jn 3:10; Vincent’s Word Studies on Jn
3:5.

The Valley of Dry Bones in Ezek 37 describes a literal physical resurrection for OT saints whose dry bones currently lie in graves. Some evangelical scholarship ALSO ties John 3:5 to Ezekiel 37. While Ezek 36 helped to establish divine Water, the Valley of Dry Bones confirms that Ezekiel understood the term Pneuma (well Ruach) as Wind/Breath rather than Spirit/Ghost. Unfortunately the translators of Ezek 37 are not very consistent. In some verses they translate the pneuma/ruach as breath/wind, in others as spirit. It's pretty unlikely that Ezekiel equivocated.

What did Ezekiel mean by the four winds of heaven? Again, flexibiity. Resurrection involves CPR (cardio pulmonary resucitation). One has to insufflate wind/air/breath into the lungs at some point. If some of God's angels ARE living winds, wouldn't they likely be well qualified to assist in the resurrection? Therefore the four winds could refer to a special task-force of four qualified angels. Or, perhaps it refers to a subdivision of the Third Person (or at least part of Him) into four Winds. Again, the system is flexible.

So to answer your original question:
Does the blowing wind have 72 personal attributes?
Yes it would most certainly seem so. After all, non-living winds would lack the knowledge and skillset to resurrect millions of Israelites from their graves, in terms of reassembling the bones, clothing them with flesh, and flawlessly insufflating breath/wind/air into their lungs. This kind of task is much more suited to skillful living winds/breaths.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I said:
JAL said:
I 'm not insisting you got it DIRECTLY from Plato. Even if you learned it from a pastor, or from seminary, the ORIGIN of the doctrine, historically, is Plato (and/or his followers known as Platonists)

You responded:
Quoting you, this appears that you are accusing me of getting my nonexistent "platonism" directly from Plato.
DIRECTLY from Plato? Didn't I just insinuate the opposite? Twice you boasted of priding yourself in how carefully you read a post before responding to it, and yet, time and again, I'm completely mystified by your responses.

Some Christians have no inkling of the logical underpinnings of this immaterial Spirit-concept. In order to make an informed decision about it,they need a little understanding. I'll hit on some key points briefly, for the benefit of those unacquainted.

This excerpt from Catholic Encyclopedia is a good introduction.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Scholasticism
But since it's a long treatise, I'll highlight some of the major thrusts.
(1) The excerpt traces the dominant influence of Plato and his disciple Aristotle for the first 1700 years of church history. For example it documents that the concept of an immaterial soul came directly from those two thinkers.
(2) It answers the question as to WHY Plato had so much influence on the church. The early church fathers recognized that Scripture was a book of brevity and thus limited in scope - it didn't seem to provide a massive amount of detailed information on technical issues of science and philosophy. Hence the fathers assumed that God provided Greek philosophers as a kind of supplement to Scripture. According to the Catholic Encylopedia, "The [fathers] advanced the explanation that all the wisdom of Plato and the other Greeks was due to the inspiration of the Logos [the divine Word]; that it was God's truth, and, therefore, could not be in contradiction with the supernatural revelation contained in the Gospels...We find [this assumpion] in St. Basil, in Origen, and even in St. Augustine."

Greek philosphy - placed on a par with Scripture? This kind of mentality prevailed for 1700 years! Out of this COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT sprung the Christian dogmas of immaterial souls,angels,and God. My advice to any Christians reading this thread is this: know your heritage. Before you buy into such a doctrine, be keenly aware of what presuppostions, historically, precipitated it.

Ok so what specific Plato-style rationales led to such doctrines? Plato's Theory of Forms (see Wikipedia) held that properties EXIST. For instance if we see a red object, it might be due to an existing (immaterial) form/substance called 'redness', imposing redness upon the material object. A dog is a chunk of matter molded by an existing form/property called 'dog-ness'. Thus properties exist and are called FORMS. Likwise goodness, love, omniscience, omnipotence are forms (existing properties/attributes).

However, the ECFs took it even one step further when applying this concept to God. Here a good source is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This online encypoledia is a peer-reviewed reference work authored by professors expert in their fields.
Divine Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
But since this too is a long article (and especially difficult), I'll hit on some key points.

As pointed out in the very 1st paragraph of the Stanford article, the ECFs took the matter-form composition one step further when applying this concept to God, to avoid reducing Him to an ordinary creature. Thus they made a distinction between God and creature:
(1) An ordinary creature is matter influenced by these immaterial forms/properties.
(2) God is not a matter-form composition. Rather He Himself is pure properties/forms. Because, if a property/form could exist separately from God, He would be dependent on it (He would depend on it as His source of holiness), whence He would be neither a transcendent entity nor the ultimate source of holiness. (That was their reasoning anyway).

Thus God is not a matter-form composition, he is not COMPOSED of multiple aspects or parts in any sense at all. Another name for this lack of composition is simplicity. Hence it is known as the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS). As the article states in the first paragraph:

"According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter-form composition, potency-act composition, and existence-essence composition. There is no real distinction between God...and his attributes....God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by BEING omniscience [itself]".

Indeed even a multitide of forms/properties would itself be a composition, hence God boils down to only one existing property/form combining all His positive aspects. I suppose we could call this form/property God-ness. God is the God-ness property. (I'm still wondering how we get a Trinity out of a God uncomposed of parts).

The next paragraph begins with an interesting question. "What could motivate such a strange and seemingly incoherent doctrine?" Yes, it certainly seems incoherent to me. Although the remainder of the article is devoted to defending the coherence of this God-ness notion, I have at least six objections NOT addressed in the article.

(1) It's not clear how an immaterial God could actually DO anything. How can immaterial hands perform surgery on the sick? As mentioned in post #5 (and demonstrated throughout this thread), Scripture EXPLICITLY documents physical divine activity.
(2) Reality is what it is. Just because some Christian theologians formulated THEIR philosophical definition of the ideal God, doesn't mean that He is necessarily such.
(3) In point of fact it doesn't seem to work. At post 134 I argued that a community of beings seems to require, for logistical reasons, matter-energy as the basis of intercommunication.
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?
And scripture backs this up. Note for example what David said at Psalm 18: "In my distress I called to the Lord;I cried to my God for help. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came before him, into his ears". David issued sounds waves as a method of prayer. Those sound waves (presumably relayed by the material divine Word), reached the very throne of God, making entrance into His ears.
(4) The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity claims that God even lacks 'temporal parts' (has no time-composition). He's timeless. This contradicts merit defined unanimously as freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time (e.g. Calvary).
(5) Merit isn't the only trait necessitating time. Consciousness too. Timeless consciousness is logically incoherent. It's gibberish. At post 192, I defined consciousness as loudness:
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?
Consciousness is two types of loudness. (1) The loudness of present-moment contrasts. You can't see white chalk on a white chalkboard. (2) The loudness of present-past contrasts (i.e. the present experience contrasted with remembered experiences), which allows for a sense of DURATION. Joy cannot be enjoyed without a sense of duration, it has to LAST for a little while. If God perceived all past, present, and future in one simultaneity - one timeless flash - it would rob Him of real conscious experience, both its joys and its sorrows for example. Doesn't make sense.
(6) Disembodied personhood is logically incoherent. It's gibberish. Try to imagine yourself devoid of any kind of torso, and thus not beholding yourself as an object situated in an environment of objects distinct from you. Gradually this imagination causes you to vanish from the picture until there's no longer any conscious 'you' to speak of. Thus it doesn't make sense to refer to God as a disembodied conscious Person. Such would be UNCONSCIOUSNESS.

To summarize those six points, I would say the following to the ECFs if I had the chance, "When you ancients formulated your theory of the ideal, fully transcendent God, you failed to consider whether such a God is logistically feasible, whether it is even coherent to define a conscious Person - much less a Trinity of persons (or a community of beings) - as a mere intangible PROPERTY."

So to anyone reading this thread - that's your theological heritage. You can take it or leave it. I would leave it, if I were you.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Der Alter said:
I have never known the wind to have personal attributes.
If you recall, I welcomed this empirical-based argument because, in post 272, it afforded me another opportunity to present the empirical proof for a material human mind - proof still unrefuted since the day that Tertullian adduced it back in 200 A.D.

I almost forgot - there's a 2nd opportunity here. If empirical data be allowed to weigh in on biblical matters, what does it say about creation ex nihilo? I mean, from the standpoint of experience, it would seem to be a logical impossibility - and pure nonsense - to hope to retrieve a hammer from an empty chest of tools.

Some noted evangelical scholars already admit that there's no hard biblical evidence for creation ex nihilo. Given the absence of Scriptural support, why should I buy into a seemingly nonsense doctrine flatly contradicting my own daily empirical experience?

Examples of scholarship attesting to the lack of biblical support for creation ex nihilo.
(1) The biblical words for “create,” affirmed Hodge, can actually be translated as forming and shaping something out of existing material (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Volume I: Theology, pp. 556-558).
(2) Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament at Gen 1:1 admits that the Hebrew word “bara” (create), in the final analysis, “does not exclude a pre-existent material.”
(3)The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on “creation” admitted that Genesis 1 provides no clear evidence for creation ex nihilo. The ISBE is written by a team of 200 evangelical scholars.

Some scholars appeal to Heb 11:3, based on a misunderstanding of the chapter. That verse actually supports creation out of preexisting material. After all, several noted evangelical scholars, including John Calvin, recognized that God formed the earth out of waters (Gen 1:6-9; 2Pet 3:5) as his raw material and thus out of preexisting material. But where did the waters come from? Scripture doesn't say, but the point is that Heb 11:3 doesn't support creation ex nihilo.

The church has misunderstood Heb 11 to be a treatise on a kind of blind faith. 'Take a chance! Step out on faith! Do something for God!' This is foolishness. Try stepping off a building to walk on air by faith, as Peter stepped out to walk on water. You'll die. Peter didn't step out on BLIND faith. He prayed the Lord for a confirmation, until the divine voice AUTHORIZED Him to step out on the water. The voice convicts (convinces) so that, instead of walking out in uncertainty, we step out with 100% certainty. What Heb 11 is referring to is that God often uses visions to raise the level of certainty. Thus for a mature Christian, the 'things unseen' ARE seen, and thus GENUINE faith IS by sight (and hearing). This is the whole point of Heb 11. Therefore Heb 11:13 is saying 'We [mature saints] know by faith [visions] that the world was made out of things unseen' - because this writer COULD see those things (such as the the original waters).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
(2) Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament at Gen 1:1 admits that the Hebrew word “bara” (create), in the final analysis, “does not exclude a pre-existent material.”
Are these quotes from your own research or copy/paste from another source? I happen to have ISBE and K&D and I want to know who to blame for deliberate misrepresentation. Here is what K&D actually says.
[Gen 1:1]The verb בָּרָא, indeed, to judge from its use in Jos_17:15, Jos_17:18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally “to cut, or new,” but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:1-2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num_16:30) or of that of grace (Exo_34:10; Psa_51:10, etc.). In this verse, however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heaven and the earth.
(3)The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on “creation” admitted that Genesis 1 provides no clear evidence for creation ex nihilo. The ISBE is written by a team of 200 evangelical scholars.
What the ISBE actually says.
Creation 5. Matter Not Eternal
The Old Testament and the New Testament, in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation. We cannot say that the origin of matter is excluded from the Genesis account of creation, and this quite apart from the use of bārā', as admitting of material and means in creation. But it seems unwise to build upon Genesis passages that afford no more than a basis which has proved exegetically insecure. The New Testament seems to favor the derivation of matter from the non-existent - that is to say, the time-worlds were due to the effluent Divine Word or originative Will, rather than to being built out of God's own invisible essence. So the best exegesis interprets Heb_11:3.
I wonder how many more errors/misrepresentations I would find if I researched every alleged "quote" that was posted?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Are these quotes from your own research or copy/paste from another source? I happen to have ISBE and K&D and I want to know who to blame for deliberate misrepresentation. Here is what K&D actually says.
[Gen 1:1]The verb בָּרָא, indeed, to judge from its use in Jos_17:15, Jos_17:18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally “to cut, or new,” but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:1-2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num_16:30) or of that of grace (Exo_34:10; Psa_51:10, etc.). In this verse, however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heaven and the earth.

What the ISBE actually says.
Creation 5. Matter Not Eternal
The Old Testament and the New Testament, in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation. We cannot say that the origin of matter is excluded from the Genesis account of creation, and this quite apart from the use of bārā', as admitting of material and means in creation. But it seems unwise to build upon Genesis passages that afford no more than a basis which has proved exegetically insecure. The New Testament seems to favor the derivation of matter from the non-existent - that is to say, the time-worlds were due to the effluent Divine Word or originative Will, rather than to being built out of God's own invisible essence. So the best exegesis interprets Heb_11:3.
I wonder how many more errors/misrepresentations I would find if I researched every alleged "quote" that was posted?

Here's what i said about Kyle:
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament at Gen 1:1 admits that the Hebrew word “bara” (create), in the final analysis, “does not exclude a pre-existent material."

That's all I said. Don't put words in my mouth.
 
Upvote 0