In conclusion - last post on this for sure:
That's exactly my question; what other thing can he do that will bring condemnation since you believe a believer never can do anything that will bring condemnation? If you're going to use that as a reason for discounting circular reasoning, then you need to provide a valid example(s) of such.
I obviously (and as I have told you before) do not believe that a believer can or will do anything which will bring him into condemnation. I believe Jesus about that.
My example was merely to show you how illogical a particular conclusion which you stated was.
You said the following in an effort to prove that my original deduction was circular.
Your proposition X (no believer will accept mark) is true because of your premise Y (no believer ever comes into condemnation). In other words, X is true because Y is true. But the reverse is also true in that Y is true because X is true; i.e. no believer is condemned because no believer will ever accept the mark. Your argument is thus circular and fallacious.
No believer taking the mark of the beast is true because the original premise (the clear statement of our Lord) is true and that indeed is my argument.
But the reverse is not necessarily true just presented as a logical argument. It is not a true conclusion that no believer can come into condemnation simply because it is true that no believer will come into condemnation for taking the mark of the beast.
That is the conclusion you come to which causes you to charge me with circular reasoning.
An off the wall example might be if I made a correct logical construct such as:
I will never be seen in public without clothes.
(Y) Therefore I will never be stripped naked by thugs and shoved out into the streets to be seen without clothes.
(X) That is a perfectly logical construct.
But you are saying that the following is a logical construct (and it isn't):
I will never be stripped naked by thugs and shoved out into the streets to be seen with clothes. Therefore I will never be seen in public without clothes.
There are any number of other reasons we could name why I could be seen in public with clothes. The "thug" example is but one. Just because X is true does not mean (as you say) Y is true.
You accused me of circular logic. I said it was not circular logic but plain old good logic. Yours, on the other hand, was not.
Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion weren't already assumed to be true.
My presentation did not meet that criteria but was rather a simple logical construct.
Getting back to the original situation concerning the mark of the beast - we both start with an assumption in stating our premises. That much is true.
My assumption is that Jesus was truthful and forthright when He said that a believer would never come into condemnation. Your assumption is that Jesus was not being truthful and forthright.
Therefore our conclusions about believers taking the mark of the beast are radically different.
You can believe what you want and I will believe what I want about the premise. There isn’t anything I can do about that.
But my argument is valid assuming my premise. Where as yours is not even assuming your premise..
Examples of the two arguments go like this..
MINE = Believers can’t go to Hell. Everyone who takes the mark goes to Hell. Therefore no believers take the mark.
YOURS = Believers can go to Hell. Everyone who takes the mark goes to Hell. Therefore some believers take the mark.
If you do reply one last time, please offer your explanation of how the prodigal son was made alive again. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, I would like to be informed of such but I cannot think of any other interpretation other than the one I proffered.
I don’t have a lot of time for this. But here goes in short form.
In Luke 15 Jesus was showing “non-sinners” (in their own eyes) why they shouldn’t be surprised that He would be so interested in seeking and working with “sinners”. Instead they should be happy about it. He told them a series of parables to show why it was not only perfectly normal that He should be so interested in sinners but why it was really to be expected of Him.
In the first parable – God is a shepherd who lost a sheep (not a literal shepherd obviously). The sinners are a lost sheep (not literal sheep obviously). The friends and neighbors whom He expects to rejoice with Him are the “non-sinners”.
In the second parable – God is a woman who lost a coin (not a literal woman obviously). The sinners are a lost coin (not a literal coin obviously). The friends and neighbors who were called to rejoice are the “non-sinners (the Pharisees and such) whom He called to rejoice with Him when He found the coin.
In the third parable – God is the father of two sons (not a literal father obviously). The older son is representative of the “non-sinners”. The younger son is representative of the “sinners“. The older son has no issues with the Father. He does not need redemption. But the second does have issues with his father as shown. The younger son (the “sinners”) needs redemption.
The younger son repents and returns and the father rejoices (as God does when any sinner repents). He expects the son who was never in need of redemption to rejoice and instead they grouse about how well he treated the redeemed son.
Now – this is a parable to teach us about the poor attitude of the Pharisees and the teachers. It is not a parable about the prodigal son.
The sinners Jesus was associating with were not literal “sons” of God. They were obviously not saved as you suggest. The Pharisees and teachers for darn sure weren’t saved sons of God. God was not their father. They were – until the work of Christ is done and they exercised saving faith (if ever) children of their father the devil.
As you did with the mark of the beast example – you make certain unwarranted assumptions and base your conclusions on those wrong conclusions.
This is not a story to illustrate any truth about eternal security or lack thereof. I was never meant to be taken that way.
“Dead” and “lost” are merely terms used in the parables to display the general relationship of sinners to God - the shepherd, the woman, and the father. They were never meant to be carried over into a teaching about loss of salvation for the adopted sons of God.
The younger son was never literally dead any more than God was a father to the Pharisees or the sinners were coins or sheep. These are parables.
I hope this helps. But I doubt very much that you have been persuaded about the eternal security issue – even though you should have been really, really, convicted about your poor logic skills.
I don't have time to proof read this. So I'm just going to hit post reply and leave it up to you to screen my meaning etc.
