Question for meticulous sovereignty folks

[MamaZ]

With Christians Christ controls us through His Spirit that dwells within us. We are slaves now to righteousness because of Who lives in us. We have that imperishable seed with in us His People. Death has not yet been conquered.. It still reigns over us until we put off the corruptable and Christ raises us incorruptable.

 

[JAL]

MuzicMan,

I wanted to clarify something (which I thought I had clarified earlier, can't recall).


If God were omnibenevolent, He would have atoned for everyone, even the devil. You objected that His justice is a limiting factor. That objection makes no sense, because atonement satisfies justice. Justice is simply punishing the guilty, rewarding the innocent. The benevolence of God is therefore finite, but in no way is it unjust, according to Scripture.

 

[themuzicman]

As usual, you haven't cited a single Scripture in support of your view, nor have you demonstrated logical necessity.

Apparently you don't grasp popular scripture, since I cited John 3:16, and portions of Genesis 1 and 2. I made the rash assumption that you would recognize commonly cited Scripture when it is presented to you.

So, this statement is false. Whether you're being intentionally obtuse or really don't know your bible well at all, I can't tell.

For instance, yhou've been speaking of "free will and dominion" over a span of probably a couple of 100 posts. And yet:
(1) Not once did you even so much as DEFINE dominion.
(2) Not once did you even provide any evidence that what YOU call "dominion" is the same thing as what the Bible means by the term.

You want me to cite the dictionary? Are we not speaking English? Or are you too lazy to go pick one up?

Giving dominion means you get to run the place. In this case, mankind was commanded to reproduce, fill the earth, subdue it, and rule over it. What's hard about that? That's the very tenor of Genesis 1 and 2.

By all appearances, you are completely fantasizing your "doctrine of dominion." Earlier I objected that angels had free will without starvation.

1) They apparently don't eat.

2) The ones that haven't fallen wouldn't have a problem. Starvation is a result of sin, not free will.

This objection stands uncontested.

The objection is based upon a false premise. You see, you can't get out of your presupposition about what I believe, so you wind up doing this over and over.

Free will and dominion do not necessitate starvation. Starvation and suffering occur because man causes them. If man would not have sinned (and continue to sin), we would not have starvation and suffering.

So, without this assumption, your point falls apart.

And has done so many times, now.

Perhaps you could articulate to us where I've said that free will and dominion require starvation. (But only do so, if you want to continue your wild goose chase on this point.

You haven't provided any evidence that God needed to create a world where starvation was even a possibility.

God didn't NEED to create anything. God created because He desired to do so.

Again, you'll assert, "The Word implies it." That hasn't been demonstrated, and it also begs the question because, I ask AGAIN, why put such a stipulation in His Word? You suggest, this is the kind of world that God "wanted." Well, what does a loving God want? What does a righteous God want? What does a just God want? Unecessary starvation? Infant mortality? Which one of God's attributes supports your position? Clearly, none of them! Because, AGAIN, God could have extended His creation by creating more angels.

Call it a presupposition of mine (I think it's based in Scripture, given the number of times God reaches out in love to a fallen and sinful people), but I believe God created, in part, so that we (mankind) would engage in a mutually free and loving relationship with Him. I've already cited John 3:16, where God loves the world. We can go to Eph 1:4, where God chose to have a people to Himself. We can look at God's actions with Israel, who repeatedly abandon Him for other gods, and God still calls them back.

Again, the entire tenor of Scripture tell us that God's desire for creation is to have a people for Himself who freely engage in a loving relationship with Him.

And, as I've stated as a matter of simple logic, a freely loving relationship requires the possibility of rejection. Indeed, if a man desires a loving relationship with a woman, but the woman is kept isolated and has no choice but to remain with him, we wouldn't call that a freely loving relationship.

Likewise, in God's case, the choice to reject Him must be available in some way in order for us to have a freely loving relationship with Him. That was the purpose of the TKGE. Adam was warned that death would result from eating from the tree.

Thus, the ultimate suffering, death and eternal separation from God, along with all of these other consequences were necessarily possible for God to engage in this freely loving relationship.

But the choice was man's, not God's.

You tell me the angelic scenario isn't valid because it's permament. (And yet you accuse me of being unwilling to think through your position?) The sword cuts both ways. Think about mine. Make the angelic scenario temporary instead of permanent. Same objection applies. It is unjust to have innocent angels dragged off by the devil for ANY kind of torment for any length of time.

But the injustice would be committed by the devil, not God. Why do you attribute blame to God for things that the devil or humans do?

By the way, the only reason I used the term semi-federalistic was to avoid further semantic debates.

So, you admit that my view doesnt' apper to fit your pigeon holes of "traditional views"?

You claim that it is righteous for us to suffer "consequences" for Adam's sin, but the "consequences" you have in mind have eternal ramifications.

Incorrect. We suffer for our own sins, both individually and corporately. Adam just kicked over the any hill.

Also, I said that it is justice for us to (corporately) suffer for our own sins.

Righteousness demands that God keep His word.

Do you need a program?

Men wind up in hell (PERMANENTLY), as a result of a "condition" inherited from Adam which moves them to sin. That's funny, because a moment ago you told me that my angelic scenario was invalid due to permanency.

But for humans, reconciliation is possible.

To "defend" this kind of judicial absurdity, you make nebulous statements such as "We have to consider all God's attributes, including that He is righteous and holy." But by all apperances, a righteous and holy God would act in ways the OPPOSITE of what you are asserting.

Not when you consider God's delcarations.

This places a considerable burden of explanation on you to CLARIFY why a righteous and holy God would set up planet Earth as you describe it.

Because what is happening now is not God's intent for planet earth. God's intent was for mankind to live righteous, holy lives in a loving relationship with Him. After giving free will and dominion, God did everything in His power to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the TKGE. HE warned them, and told them they would DIE if they ate from it.

A simple reading of Genesis 1 and 2 reflect this very clearly. Creation created "very good." Adam created, walks with God, names the animals. Eve created for companionship with Adam. They walk with God. Everything is perfect. This was (and is) God's purpose in creating.

It was not God's will for Adam to sin. God desired paradise for mankind, a place where we live freely in a loving relationship with God (as described above.)

The present condition is one caused by man's (initial A&E's) rejection of God.


Is this hard to see?

You provide no explanation. You just keep making these nebulous, unsupported statements, that "this world as such had to exist, and it had to be the sort of world where one man's sin can ruin the lives of billions of people who would otherwise be innocent." Not only is your view judicial absurdity, completely unrighteous, and the zenith of cruelty, it is internally incoherent for another reason already stated, namely, that it doesn't even provide an intelligible definition of sin, beacuse as I charged earlier, to claim that "the condition made me do it" is the same as claiming "the devil made me do it" in the sense of being equally deterministic. In your world view, God is the liar who calls billions of people as "guilty of sin" even though it is ostensibly His fault for visiting them with this "condition". Certainly it isn't their fault.

Again, until you grasp the idea that what is happening now is NOT what God inteded, you'll miss the point.

Some of your statements are pretty vague:

Whose? A baby is dying of starvation or disease. The baby is losing free will by death. Whose free will is taken away if God feeds the baby or heals the disease? Here again, you make a bunch of nebulous unsupported assertions.

Your original example was someone killing the baby.

Again, the explanation is that this is man's domain. These consequences are man's will, the result of man's decisions. In what way is God obligaged to clean up our mess?

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

MuzicMan,

I wanted to clarify something (which I thought I had clarified earlier, can't recall).


If God were omnibenevolent, He would have atoned for everyone, even the devil. You objected that His justice is a limiting factor. That objection makes no sense, because atonement satisfies justice. Justice is simply punishing the guilty, rewarding the innocent. The benevolence of God is therefore finite, but in no way is it unjust, according to Scripture.

God did make propitiation for all who can be propitiated. Because angels don't don't die a physical death, there is no propitiation possible for them.

However, given the conditions of salvation, the onus shifts to man, first to believe, and then to preach the gospel to all men.

I find it amazing that you consistently pick out the wrong attribute of God to explain what's happening.

Muz

 

[beloved57]

The term you are trying to use is YOU'RE.

And I believe you have one more accusation to throw at me to make my blessing complete don't you?

enjoy!

squint

You are not of God..you think you are..

 

[JAL]

God did make propitiation for all who can be propitiated. Because angels don't don't die a physical death, there is no propitiation possible for them.

But of course that's just faulty logic. Propitiation requires suffering, first and foremost.


Those who naively take any verse at face value labor under the delusion that Christ's death atoned for us. Look a little deeper. I realize what Scripture says in certain verses read only at the surface level, but you need to look below the surface. The death was actually the easy part of the whole thing. The moment of death was the cessation of suffering. Let's get something straight. Cessation of suffering is not what atoned for us. What atoned for us is the suffering. Therefore my argument stands.

I am so sick of all these shallow 'rebuttals' of my arguments, not just from you but from most of the people that I debate with.

 

[JAL]

Apparently you don't grasp popular scripture, since I cited John 3:16, and portions of Genesis 1 and 2. I made the rash assumption that you would recognize commonly cited Scripture when it is presented to you.

Anyone who participates in these debates will regularly allude to some verses. What you don't seem to grasp (sigh) is that your miscellaneous nebulous allusions to Scripture don't provide much of anything concrete in support of your position. You don't even define your terms with theological precision, much less defend them.

You want me to cite the dictionary? Are we not speaking English? Or are you too lazy to go pick one up?

Yeah, that's it. Why did all those professional theologians spend centuries writing systematic theology textbooks designed for theological precision? Why didn't they just say, "Go to a dictionary and look it up for yourself" ??? How stupid of them.

Giving dominion means you get to run the place. In this case, mankind was commanded to reproduce, fill the earth, subdue it, and rule over it. What's hard about that?

Your disregard for theological precision is becoming so blatant that I can scarcely proceed further with this discussion. You ask, "What's so hard about that?" A heck of a lot, for instance it's not even clear to what extent the Fall forefeited privileges of dominion. Nor are the specifics of the dominion clear in the text. Is it given to any explorer or conquerer? Or only in the context of a theocracy, where the Shekinah Glory lives in rules (viz. Israel) ??? The cavalier manner in which you lightly skate over the issues, merely because you want to pretend to have "proven" your point, bespeaks unprofessionalism.

That's the very tenor of Genesis 1 and 2.
1) They apparently don't eat.
2) The ones that haven't fallen wouldn't have a problem. Starvation is a result of sin, not free will.

Huh? Sin doesn't involve free will?

The objection is based upon a false premise. You see, you can't get out of your presupposition about what I believe, so you wind up doing this over and over.
Free will and dominion do not necessitate starvation. Starvation and suffering occur because man causes them. If man would not have sinned (and continue to sin), we would not have starvation and suffering.
So, without this assumption, your point falls apart.
And has done so many times, now.

Nope, looking over my last post, I don't see anything here that refutes the arguments raised. For instance you still have the innocent suffering consequences of someone else's bad behavior. God didn't have to make that kind of world. In fact, He didn't. In my world view, the innocent don't suffer such consequences.

Perhaps you could articulate to us where I've said that free will and dominion require starvation. (But only do so, if you want to continue your wild goose chase on this point.

It goes like this. A benevolent father wouldn't let his children starve unless there was some complelling reason for it, something necessitating this degree of suffering. I ask you what that reason is. Is is judgment for sin? (My answer). You say, "No." You say things like, "Someone would lose free will if God fed the children. If men are to have free will and dominion, God cannot put these sufferings to a stop."

God didn't NEED to create anything. God created because He desired to do so.

I strongly disagree. If God is fully benovelent - and He is - He is not going to create a world with the possiblity of suffering unless there is a need for it. For more info, see my Doctrine of God as detailed on another thread (see the link given earlier). The thread exposes several contradictions in traditional Doctrine of God. It shows that, to avoid those contradictions, we'll have to admit that God is finite in several respects, and part of this "finite picture" is that He created this world to satisfy a need. You want to deny this? Fine - but until you can show me a theology that solves all the traditional contradictions, I'm not going to respect your opinion.

Call it a presupposition of mine (I think it's based in Scripture, given the number of times God reaches out in love to a fallen and sinful people), but I believe God created, in part, so that we (mankind) would engage in a mutually free and loving relationship with Him. I've already cited John 3:16, where God loves the world. We can go to Eph 1:4, where God chose to have a people to Himself. We can look at God's actions with Israel, who repeatedly abandon Him for other gods, and God still calls them back.

Again, the entire tenor of Scripture tell us that God's desire for creation is to have a people for Himself who freely engage in a loving relationship with Him.

How enlightening. I'd never have figured that out for myself.

And, as I've stated as a matter of simple logic, a freely loving relationship requires the possibility of rejection. Indeed, if a man desires a loving relationship with a woman, but the woman is kept isolated and has no choice but to remain with him, we wouldn't call that a freely loving relationship.

Equally enlightening. Thank you so much.

Likewise, in God's case, the choice to reject Him must be available in some way in order for us to have a freely loving relationship with Him. That was the purpose of the TKGE. Adam was warned that death would result from eating from the tree.

Three in a row? My notebook is getting overfull with all the great wisdom you are imparting.

Thus, the ultimate suffering, death and eternal separation from God, along with all of these other consequences were necessarily possible for God to engage in this freely loving relationship.

I have no problem with consequences - long as they don't fall upon innocent angels and innocent babes.

But the choice was man's, not God's.

Man's free will is involved. Again, how insightful. Thank you so much.

But the injustice would be committed by the devil, not God. Why do you attribute blame to God for things that the devil or humans do?

Of course I did no such thing.

So, you admit that my view doesnt' apper to fit your pigeon holes of "traditional views"?

Loaded question. Ignored.

Incorrect. We suffer for our own sins, both individually and corporately. Adam just kicked over the any hill.

Also, I said that it is justice for us to (corporately) suffer for our own sins.

That makes for a good laugh. Simply apply the rubric "just" to that which fits the definition of "unjust". What brilliant argumentative logic you employ. Tell you what, let's put this in perspective. Two men are running for District Attorney. First one says, "I'll make everyone suffer some kind of consequences when a criminal transgresses, even though the rest of you had no chance to stop him." Second one says, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure that only the criminal will suffer the conequences."
Which one has a better grasp of justice in your view? (Maybe I should be asking someone else. Your values seem pretty warped).

More brilliant insight in the next paragraph:

Because what is happening now is not God's intent for planet earth. God's intent was for mankind to live righteous, holy lives in a loving relationship with Him. After giving free will and dominion, God did everything in His power to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the TKGE. HE warned them, and told them they would DIE if they ate from it. A simple reading of Genesis 1 and 2 reflect this very clearly. Creation created "very good." Adam created, walks with God, names the animals. Eve created for companionship with Adam. They walk with God. Everything is perfect. This was (and is) God's purpose in creating.

It was not God's will for Adam to sin. God desired paradise for mankind, a place where we live freely in a loving relationship with God (as described above.)
The present condition is one caused by man's (initial A&E's) rejection of God.
Is this hard to see? Again, until you grasp the idea that what is happening now is NOT what God inteded, you'll miss the point.

Wow. That changes the whole picture. None of this ever occured to me. Thanks again.

Your original example was someone killing the baby.

Here you seem to be confirming my earlier suspicion that you take my words "infant mortality" to mean "someone killing a baby." Funny you said I was the one too lazy to pick up a dictionary?

Again, the explanation is that this is man's domain. These consequences are man's will, the result of man's decisions. In what way is God obligaged to clean up our mess?

God is responsible for protecting the innocent (viz. the holy angels) from the bad behavior of the guilty. You don't want to admit this fact, simply because it refutes your position.

In sum, this last post of yours was par for the course. More miscellaneous nebulous statements, nothing concrete in support of your assertions.

 

[themuzicman]

Anyone who participates in these debates will regularly allude to some verses. What you don't seem to grasp (sigh) is that your miscellaneous nebulous allusions to Scripture don't provide much of anything concrete in support of your position. You don't even define your terms with theological precision, much less defend them.

Nice shifting of the goalposts. First you say that I don't quote any scripture. Then when I point out where I have, you demand more.

Yeah, that's it. Why did all those professional theologians spend centuries writing systematic theology textbooks designed for theological precision? Why didn't they just say, "Go to a dictionary and look it up for yourself" ??? How stupid of them.

Because theologians generally don't have to define terms, unless they mean something significantly different in Hebrew/Greek than in English. Dominion is dominion. The long explanations are what implications these terms have, which I've been explaining.

Your disregard for theological precision is becoming so blatant that I can scarcely proceed further with this discussion. You ask, "What's so hard about that?" A heck of a lot, for instance it's not even clear to what extent the Fall forefeited privileges of dominion.

You can't infer that from what I've said? If the present circumstance is like that before the fall, then you could probably infer (ask if you wish), that I don't see much change in dominion.

Nor are the specifics of the dominion clear in the text. Is it given to any explorer or conquerer? Or only in the context of a theocracy, where the Shekinah Glory lives in rules (viz. Israel) ??? The cavalier manner in which you lightly skate over the issues, merely because you want to pretend to have "proven" your point, bespeaks unprofessionalism.

"Mankind."

Huh? Sin doesn't involve free will?

No. However, sin is different than free will. Sin is violating the righteousness of God. Free will is choosing. The are different. You cannot equate them.

Nope, looking over my last post, I don't see anything here that refutes the arguments raised. For instance you still have the innocent suffering consequences of someone else's bad behavior. God didn't have to make that kind of world. In fact, He didn't. In my world view, the innocent don't suffer such consequences.

I have explained it. I realize that you don't like the answer, but I have explained it.

It goes like this. A benevolent father wouldn't let his children starve unless there was some complelling reason for it, something necessitating this degree of suffering. I ask you what that reason is. Is is judgment for sin? (My answer). You say, "No." You say things like, "Someone would lose free will if God fed the children. If men are to have free will and dominion, God cannot put these sufferings to a stop."

Again, your analogy leaves out many important aspects of the discussion:

1) The Father has no duties of justice over the sons.
2) The Father has not granted dominion over an estate to the sons, giving them control over what happens there.
3) The sons have not crossed the Father's command, invoking the necessity of justice against the sons.
4) The Father is not established as perfectly honorable, always abiding by His word.

Given these four, the explanation is clear: Responsibility for what happens on the estate falls to the sons, not the Father, and unless He breaks His word, the Father cannot interfere in what the sons do, even to each other (innocent or not), without the involvement of one of the other sons to act in his dominion as part of the estate.

So, when we complete the analogy with the present condition (some of which are my presuppositions, which I believe are based in Scripture), and the other relevant attributes of God, the explanation is clear.

So, given your "omnibenevolence only" view of God, you have a point. But, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, God has more attributes than omnibenevolence.

I strongly disagree. If God is fully benovelent - and He is - He is not going to create a world with the possiblity of suffering unless there is a need for it.

And the need for the possibility lies in the God's desire for freely loving relationships.

You keep repeating this as though I haven't explained it to you.

I don't expect you to agree with it. But at least you could go though the effort of seeing what I'm proposing.

For more info, see my Doctrine of God as detailed on another thread (see the link given earlier). The thread exposes several contradictions in traditional Doctrine of God. It shows that, to avoid those contradictions, we'll have to admit that God is finite in several respects, and part of this "finite picture" is that He created this world to satisfy a need. You want to deny this? Fine - but until you can show me a theology that solves all the traditional contradictions, I'm not going to respect your opinion.

That's OK. Given the number of ways that you contradict scripture, I don't respect your, either. Are we even?

I have no problem with consequences - long as they don't fall upon innocent angels and innocent babes.

Who is responsible for the consequences?

Of course I did no such thing.

Are you not holding God responsible for preventing or curing what man has caused?

Loaded question. Ignored.

What traditional view do you think I hold?

That makes for a good laugh. Simply apply the rubric "just" to that which fits the definition of "unjust". What brilliant argumentative logic you employ. Tell you what, let's put this in perspective. Two men are running for District Attorney. First one says, "I'll make everyone suffer some kind of consequences when a criminal transgresses, even though the rest of you had no chance to stop him." Second one says, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure that only the criminal will suffer the conequences."
Which one has a better grasp of justice in your view? (Maybe I should be asking someone else. Your values seem pretty warped).

You can call Scripture warped, if you want. The NATION of Israel was sent into exile for 70 years, corporately, including babies that never had a chance to observe a Sabbath or worship God at all. Even those who worshiped God and observed the Sabbath were sent. Innocent and guilty all went together, because they were judges corporately.

Maybe you should review your OT to get a sense of this.

God is responsible for protecting the innocent (viz. the holy angels) from the bad behavior of the guilty. You don't want to admit this fact, simply because it refutes your position.

Do you think that if God had to violate His Word in order to protect the innocent, that He still must do it? (Answer this hypothetically. Assume there was some declaration of God that would prevent it in a specific situation.)

Muz

 

[moonbeam]

Now you are trying to link created with creation. Creating ANTI-creation is means only that it is creatED, not creatION as a 'final product.'

You are talking nonsense....explain how something that is created can not be classified as part of creation [that which is created] ?

Perhaps by creatION you are not referring to the final product, but the ACTION of creatING. So please clarify. If you mean the final product, then ANTI-creation is NOT creation.

You are talking nonsense....that which is created is by logical necessity a part of creation [that which is created]

The distinction you make between the act of creating and that which is created [creation] is meaningless and illogical....the act of creating is itself creation.

Oh, we haven't got to that part yet. But when we do, if we do, you may get some more interesting observations that won't fit your HUMAN LOGIC BOX either

Logic is the way Gods mind works...His mind is logical...the laws of logic proceed from Him...The Word of God is the Logos [logic] of God...your attempt to reduce the laws of logic to a human construct and thus deny their devine origin is a serious mistake, which only removes the validity of statements of truth as set forth in the propositions found in scripture. God is Logical, and Logic is from God.

You have failed to demonstrate [using logical formula] your ridiculous contention ie that what is created is not necessarily part of creation.....you can not....your contention is ridiculous....illogical.

 

[moonbeam]

A Yes or No answer, particularly on a book I haven't studied (and especially on a poetry book), would make me a liar. I am not infallible.

There is nothing difficult about what I asked....I asked you to confirm that the words that proceeded from the mouth of the LORD as recorded in scripture [speaking in the first person] where in FACT spoken by Him....you have failed to do so....Why?

I form mere opinions (see my signature).

And your opinions are not in accord with the truth.

I gave you a tentative Yes which should be sufficient to germinate discussion.

Your tentative 'yes' is insufficient....the scripture says 'let your yes be yes'....we believe what God speaks, or we don't....no room for being tentative...tentative breeds uncertainty.

So the question remains for you to answer....Did the LORD speak these words as recorded in scripture

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Yes or No?

I then gave you some arguments which, conspicuously, you are not responding to.

Your arguments are necessarily tentative because they are based upon a tentative response to my above question.

Answer the question above....or do you prefer uncertainty and ambiguity?

 

[squint]

You are talking nonsense....explain how something that is created can not be classified as part of creation [that which is created] ?

Before ya get all riled understand I believe God Is The Saviour off ALL mankind.

Now, as to ANTI-Christ spirits, these are AGAINST creation. Where Christ Is The Life, they have the power of death. Where He Is The Truth, they are liars. Where He Is The Bread/Word, they are thieves of same.

They ARE creatED, but they do not classify as a part of the world/creation that God LOVES. We do not 'see' them. God created ALL THINGS through Jesus Christ our Lord, but Jesus Himself states to some that HE NEVER KNEW THEM. Yet these were 'created' THROUGH Him. Go figure.

You are talking nonsense....that which is created is by logical necessity a part of creation [that which is created]

There is creation. There is created ANTI-creation, the devil and his messengers.

The distinction you make between the act of creating and that which is created [creation] is meaningless and illogical....the act of creating is itself creation.

Not so. Creation is/was an action (of God.) It is also the 'result' as to what creation is. God did surely create in His creation anti-creation.

Logic is the way Gods mind works...His mind is logical...the laws of logic proceed from Him...

Mankind does NOT KNOW what God's Logic consists of. God assuredly does not bow to 'man's forms' of LOGIC. If we knew everything He Knows and knew the entirety of His Powers and Purposes, then maybe we could say what 'His Logic' consists of, but to compare our human logic to His Divine Logic is somewhat idiotic.

The Word of God is the Logos [logic] of God...your attempt to reduce the laws of logic to a human construct and thus deny their devine origin is a serious mistake, which only removes the validity of statements of truth as set forth in the propositions found in scripture. God is Logical, and Logic is from God.

Bringing God's Logic to our levels of understanding just doesn't work. Sorry. We all know only in part and see in darkness. Even human logic DICTATES that if we do not know all the facts and seek to employ logic apart from ALL the facts we have at least the potential for logical fallacy to ensue.

You have failed to demonstrate [using logical formula] your ridiculous contention ie that what is created is not necessarily part of creation.....you can not....your contention is ridiculous....illogical.

I prefer to categorize creation A PART of 'all things.' 'All things' would then logically categorize as 'all things.' Never in the sum of 'all things' equalizing God. That there is created anti-creation is not in question.

It's not logical to say that anti-creation is creation. Anti-creation IS part of ALL THINGS.

enjoy!

squint

 

[moonbeam]

God did surely create in His creation anti-creation.

So you agree [with what I said]...that anti-creation/darkness is a constituant part/element of the Creation?

but to compare our human logic to His Divine Logic is somewhat idiotic.

The laws of logic proceed from God....The Logos of God is the Word of God....The Logos of God is the Wisdom of God...The Logos of God is the Logic of God

Bringing God's Logic to our levels of understanding just doesn't work.

Yes it does....Logic enables us to understand....without the laws of logic it is impossible to define anything from anything else.

It's not logical to say that anti-creation is creation.

But...but...earlier you said that "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation."

You seem to have contradicted yourself there.

Anti-creation IS part of ALL THINGS.

Do you mean all things that are created?....that is....all things that are part/included in Creation?

 

[squint]

So you agree [with what I said]...that anti-creation/darkness is a constituant part/element of the Creation?

Anti-creation is part of all things but anti-creation is not creation.

The laws of logic proceed from God....The Logos of God is the Word of God....The Logos of God is the Wisdom of God...The Logos of God is the Logic of God

Did this one already as well. Mankind has mankind logic. God has God logic. The two are not the same.

Yes it does....Logic enables us to understand....without the laws of logic it is impossible to define anything from anything else.

God will not be bowing to mankinds logic anytime soon. Sorry.

But...but...earlier you said that "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation."

Think about it logically. It'll come to ya...

Do you mean all things that are created?....that is....all things that are part/included in Creation?

OK, I think we've done enough on this one. Anti-creation is NOT creation. They are BOTH a part of ALL THINGS. Terming everything 'creatED' as 'creatION' is a poor logic construct even using mankinds logic.

I have no problem with 'all things' being lumped together as 'all things.' How's dat?

And to stay with the theme of this thread, ALL THINGS serve THE MAKER of ALL THINGS.

enjoy!

squint

 

[moonbeam]

Anti-creation is part of all things but anti-creation is not creation.

You are confused.

Previously you said this "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation."

 

[moonbeam]

Terming everything 'creatED' as 'creatION' is a poor logic construct even using mankinds logic.

Ridiculous....anything that is created is by logical necessity subsumed by/in Creation.

Creation equating to all things that have been created.

 

[squint]

Ridiculous....anything that is created is by logical necessity subsumed by/in Creation.

Creation equating to all things that have been created.

Picking at gnats is pointless.

I will stand by the logic of the statement that anti-creation is NOT THE SAME AS creation, OK? I have no issues with putting ALL THINGS under the flag of ALL THINGS.

There is specific reason to classify anti-creation as NOT THE SAME AS creation beside the obvious reason that the statement making them the same is simply idiotic.

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

You are confused.

Previously you said this "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation."

And pointed out PRIOR that creation as a term is multi applicable BECAUSE there is God's ACTION applied as HIS 'creation' OF creation, and there is also a RESULT of 'creation' being the PRODUCT of His 'creation' of them.

This still does not make anti-creation the SAME as creation as a RESULT of His creation of same.

God ALSO created within HIS CREATION of all things, ANTI-creation as a product and that product is NOT the same as 'creation' which is an entirely different PRODUCT.

 

[moonbeam]

Picking at gnats is pointless.

You would rather pick at gnats than accept the truth that your contentions are illogical...and ridiculous.

I will stand by the logic of the statement that anti-creation is NOT THE SAME AS creation,

Your previous statement ie "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation." is a direct contradiction of your above statement....your contention is illogical...and ridiculous.

There is God [A].....and all things that God [A] has created...those things constitute the Creation ....end of story.

Anti-creation is not a biblical phrase [which may be the cause for your confusion]......Darkness, the antithesis of Light, is the correct phrase.

OK? I have no issues with putting ALL THINGS under the flag of ALL THINGS.

But for some illogical reason you have great difficulty in putting all things that are created....under "Creation"

Your contentions are illogical....ridiculous.

There is specific reason to classify anti-creation as NOT THE SAME AS creation beside the obvious reason that the statement making them the same is simply idiotic.

You have invented your pet phrase 'anti-creation' ...there is no such usage in scripture...this confusion is compounding your confusion.

 

[squint]

You would rather pick at gnats than accept the truth that your contentions are illogical...and ridiculous.

It will remain illogical to say that ANTI-creation is the same as creation.

Your previous statement ie "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation." is a direct contradiction of your above statement....your contention is illogical...and ridiculous.

And explained it what? 3 times now. If you don't 'get it' MOVE ON. God's creation as HIS ACTION and God's creation as a result are NOT THE SAME either. Nor does His creation as AN ACTION in creating ANTI-creation make creation and anti-creation the same things.

There is God [A].....and all things that God [A] has created...those things constitute the Creation ....end of story.

Slice it however you like. I said I have no issues classifying 'all things' as 'all things.' There will be many things NOT ALIKE in that basket.

Anti-creation is not a biblical phrase [which may be the cause for your confusion]......Darkness, the antithesis of Light, is the correct phrase.

Again, gave specific examples with ANTI-Christ spirits, them being then ANTI-LIFE because CHRIST is THE LIFE. They then are OPPOSITE of LIFE as these are ANTI-Christ then also ANTI-life, even with them having the POWER OF DEATH.

But for some illogical reason you have great difficulty in putting all things that are created....under "Creation"

As a creation action of God, yes. As a final result, no.

Your contentions are illogical....ridiculous.

Sorry, your logic box is a little small for me.

You have invented your pet phrase 'anti-creation' ...there is no such usage in scripture...Your confussion is compounding your confussion.

Already gave specific example. If you want to define ANTI-CHRIST spirits some other way have a go!

I have no issues whatsoever with a MORE ACCURATE depiction of all things created as being ALL THINGS rather than just 'creation' because there will be MANY THINGS that will or COULD avoid that basket, anti-Christ spirits being one of those items. These are AGAINST both God AND His creation. They do bring DEATH to CREATION and are therefore AGAINST creation by God's Design.

enjoy!

squint

 

[moonbeam]

God ALSO created within HIS CREATION of all things, ANTI-creation as a product and that product is NOT the same as 'creation' which is an entirely different PRODUCT.

You have confused yourself by using your self created invention 'anti-creation'

Also your own statement above demonstrates that the Creation of God [A] subsumes [within itself] all things that are created by God.

There is only God [A]....and that which God has created....that being the Creation ....end of story.

Your contentions are illogical....and ridiculous.