Should we call the Holy Spirit "He' instead of "it"?

[Tortex Plectrum]

So...where are we in this debate?

Are we calling the Holy Spirit a person or a thing now?

Since a person is a thing, both.

 

[Clare73]

Since you want to accuse me of having "made an assertion...which was a strawman," then by all means, feel free to state the "real argument" that, according to you, I should have tried to defeat, instead of trying to defeat this "strawman" you speak of. Let's hear it; let's hear that "real argument" that you're accusing me of misrepresenting.

The real argument:

Hallow-een is the eve of All Hallows (deceased saints; i.e., spirits) Day.

It is the correct name for the day before All Hallows Day.

The strawman:

So, according to you, it would be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by this word, "Halloween"?

 

[Psalm 27]

The Nicene Creed declares the Holy Spirit the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who spoke by the prophets, and who together with the prophets is worshipped and glorified.

"We believe in The Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from The Father and The Son" (filioque)
Nicean Creed

 

[ViaCrucis]

Set aside by whom? Set aside by God? Set aside in pursuance of a command by God?

The Christian Church. There's no divine command to observe any special observance or days. It is an act of Christian freedom of conscience which is ours by God's grace, as taught by the Apostle Paul, see Romans 14:5-12.

There is, therefore neither a commandment proscribing you to observe any day on the Christian calendar; but it is perfectly lawful and honoring to God to, out of the freedom of conscience, to set aside times and seasons as special occasions. Such things are clearly not forbidden by God, as God had commanded certain days and special observances for the Jews under the Covenant made with them at Sinai. While the commandment to observe those days do not apply to us (see Colossians 2:16-17); there is nothing wrong with doing so.

Of what does this "honoring the whole host of the saints who have come before us" consist? Please tell us exactly what (if anything) you mean by that. What are you accomplishing, or effecting, by doing whatever it is you call "honoring...the saints..." on a certain day you have "set aside"?

I can't tell you how everyone does it. For me I choose to reflect on the life and witness of the saints, how their lives reflect their Christian witness, and how they teach us by example in how they fought the good fight and ran the race.

Please tell us, also: Is everybody under a moral obligation to do whatever it is you call "honoring the saints," and that on certain days you declare to be "set aside"? Tell us where, in the Bible, we are commanded to do whatever that is.

Of course not. I don't know of any church that treats such things as a matter of moral obligation. But why does it need to be a moral obligation?

So, ALL saints died on 1 November?

No.

Set aside by whom?

Again, by the Christian Church.

And obedience to the Papacy's decrees is taught where in the Bible? Does the Papacy set aside a day to honor the many Christians they have murdered down through the centuries?

I couldn't care less what the Papacy decrees. But that is the history for why the Western Church (both Catholic and Protestant, not just Catholic) celebrates the Feast of All Saints on November 1st.

Just because the bishop of Rome does something doesn't make it bad either. Many of Rome's bishops through the ages have done very good things. For example St. Leo's Tome was a major contribution to the Christological debates of the 5th century; and that work is indisputably important for Christians both East and West. Even the most hardcore Southern Baptist is still going to benefit from Leo's work and involvement in those Christological debates, because they are basic and bedrock elements of orthodox Christology.

That it was a pope/bishop of Rome (I'd argue there really wasn't much of a "Papacy" in the 9th century, though that is early on in the development of what would become the Papacy by the time of the Reformation. That's a much more complicated and controversial topic though.

Who authorizes you to shortchange Halloween in favor of Reformation Day? Of the two, which does God prefer you "observe"? Reformation Day or Halloween?

I wasn't aware that authorization was needed? I observe both, and I give God glory for His saints, including the Evangelical fathers and reformers.

Oh, and if nobody can cause you, against your will, to believe that it is so, then we are obligated to obey your extra-Biblical decrees? Nice try. In any case, since there are those of us who do believe that it is so, it is thus incumbent on you to show where, in the Bible, you imagine you have found commands and directions to all this so-called "Christian holiday" business you demand everyone obey.

I'm not sure where you got this idea that it's a command to observe Christian holidays and days of observance, or where I've demanded anyone to obey anything.

You were the one making appeal to divine commandment, I merely don't see that as relevant since God neither commands nor forbids this; and Scripture is clear about the freedom of the Christian conscience on such matters. Which means you are free to do what you like. But you're not free to impose your judgment on me.

So it only seems right that if you are going to say: "It's not in the Bible, so it has nothing to do with Christianity." you should probably be able to back that up with the Bible itself.

Of course I can be convinced with Scripture, I just happen to know that there's nothing in Scripture to defend this proposition. Am I confident when I say that? Yes. Do I think I'm infallible when I say that? Of course not.

All I'm asking is that you back up what you're saying with something more than just your say-so.

Does that happen to people? Does that happen to you? That's never happened to me, and I do not imagine it could happen. Now, answer the question I asked you, which you are trying to weasel out of by your silly reaction to it:

Is there nothing wrong with dressing up like devils and devil-worshipers and pretending to threaten mischief against those who do not give you something you demand they give you gratis? YES or NO?

Do little children dress up as pirates and princesses and ask for candy at people's houses? Yes, that's happened to me and it's happened to most people I know. It's called trick-or-treating.

I've never met children dress as devil worshipers (what does a devil worshiper look like, exactly?), and I can't really think of a time when I've seen children dress up as a cartoon devil. It's usually things like pirates, cartoon characters, video game characters, Spongebob.

The point I'm making is that your question assumes a premise that, frankly, isn't true. But let's pretend for a moment that there are children running around dressed as a cartoonish devil. No, I don't think that's a problem. The devil isn't a guy in a red suit with horns and a pointy tail. So unless one is getting their theology lessons from cartoons from the early 20th century starring Bugs Bunny, I don't see how this would be an issue.

How would making fun of the devil wrong, exactly?

Just wait until you learn that what you just wrote is irrelevant to anything I've said, here.

It seems to me like one should be consistent:

Either we can set aside days to observe them, even if the Bible does not expressly command it.

Or we can't.

If it is okay to celebrate anniversaries, birthdays, etc, then surely it must be okay to celebrate Christ's birth, Christ's death and resurrection, and/or the lives of God's saints who came before us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

The Christian Church.

I take it that, by "the Christian Church," you are referring to some people. But what about other people—those who don't fall in line with such business? Are not any of these people Christians? And, if it is something that some, but not all Christians participate in, then how could it be any more reasonable to refer to it as a "Christian holiday" than it would be to call Fords, "Christian automobiles," since some Christians drive Fords?

There's no divine command to observe any special observance or days.

In a previous post, you said, "Hallowe'en, the Eve before the Feast of All Saints, is a Christian observance." Surely, if there's no divine command to "observe" these so-called "Christian observances," then there's also no divine command to call them "Christian observances," or "Christian holidays," right? And there's no divine command to refrain from stating, as I had stated (for which you pounced on me), that they have nothing to do with Christianity. And there's no divine command to pounce on someone for stating that they have nothing to do with Christianity.

It is an act of Christian freedom of conscience which is ours by God's grace, as taught by the Apostle Paul, see Romans 14:5-12.

There is, therefore neither a commandment proscribing you to observe any day on the Christian calendar;

You meant "prescribing," right? Is there a commandment prescribing me to call something "the Christian calendar"?

but it is perfectly lawful and honoring to God to, out of the freedom of conscience, to set aside times and seasons as special occasions.

It is perfectly lawful and honoring to God to..."set aside times and seasons" as occasions special to whom?

Such things are clearly not forbidden by God, as God had commanded certain days and special observances for the Jews under the Covenant made with them at Sinai.

How is referring to God's commanding the Jews to observe certain days and certain rites relevant to talking about certain days and certain rites God never commanded anybody to observe?

I can't tell you how everyone does it. For me I choose to reflect on the life and witness of the saints, how their lives reflect their Christian witness, and how they teach us by example in how they fought the good fight and ran the race.

So, basically, all you're telling me is that someone has "set aside" as "special," certain days for you to read history and biography?

Of course not. I don't know of any church that treats such things as a matter of moral obligation. But why does it need to be a moral obligation?

Odd question. Obviously, since it is not a moral obligation, it does not need to be a moral obligation.

You had written:

Memorials of the deaths of saints (especially martyrs) has been Christian practice since the earliest years of the Christian Church. Such saints' days remembered the day of their death...

So, I asked you:

So, ALL saints died on 1 November?

You answered:

No.

Then how is it reasonable to "set aside" 1 November to remember 23 February (which is said to be the day of Polycarp's death)?

Again, by the Christian Church.

But not by ALL Christians, right? And if not by ALL Christians, then why would you say "by the Christian Church"? In fact, in some places, you do not even say "the Christian Church," but, instead, you say "the Western Church".

I couldn't care less what the Papacy decrees. But that is the history for why the Western Church (both Catholic and Protestant, not just Catholic) celebrates the Feast of All Saints on November 1st.

But by your phrase, "the Western Church," you do not mean ALL Christians, right?

Just because the bishop of Rome does something doesn't make it bad either.

You mean like how just because a bank robber drives a car doesn't make driving a car bad?

I wasn't aware that authorization was needed? I observe both, and I give God glory for His saints, including the Evangelical fathers and reformers.

But I had asked you why you shortchange Halloween in preference to Reformation Day. I asked you that because you had said that "Reformation Day tends to take precedence in Lutheran practice over Halloween". By that, I took you to mean that, if you observe both Halloween and Reformation Day, you observe Halloween somewhat less and Reformation Day somewhat more. And so, I was asking you who authorizes you to observe Halloween less and Reformation Day more.

But you're not free to impose your judgment on me.

So, you're free to call certain days, "Christian holidays," but I'm not free to say that it is unreasonable to call them that?

So it only seems right that if you are going to say: "It's not in the Bible, so it has nothing to do with Christianity." you should probably be able to back that up with the Bible itself.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto ALL good works. I take the phrase, "the man of God," to be synonymous with "the Christian". Am I mistaken? And, I take it that for the man of God to be "perfect" would be for him/her to be complete in his/her Christian faith—that is, complete in his/her Christianity. I take it that Paul is speaking about the Christian being perfect as a Christian, rather than about the Christian being perfect as, say, a bowler, or as a golfer, or as a participant in manmade rites and extra-Biblical doctrine, etc. Myself, I do not call anything "Christianity" that is neither Bible doctrine nor Bible imperative. Why should I? Why should anyone?

Of course I can be convinced with Scripture, I just happen to know that there's nothing in Scripture to defend this proposition.

Wait....you can be convinced with Scripture [that there's something in Scripture to defend the proposition, P] WHILE KNOWING that there's nothing in Scripture to defend the proposition, P???

Am I confident when I say that? Yes. Do I think I'm infallible when I say that? Of course not.

If, in saying that, you are confident that it is true, then why would you not, ipso facto, think you're infallible in saying it? How could anyone ever not be infallible in believing/saying truth, other than in the sense that they are liable to fall away from believing/saying it?

All I'm asking is that you back up what you're saying with something more than just your say-so.

Since you're confident that I'm wrong, and that you're right, what, exactly, are you asking me to do by telling me to "back up what [I'm] saying with something more than just [my] say-so"? Since you're confident that I'm wrong, are you not thus confident that I can't "back up what [I'm] saying with something more than just [my] say-so"? And, if you're confident that I can't, then why would you say, "I'm asking you to back up what you're saying...."? That's like saying, "I'm confident you cannot jump over that skyscraper, so will you please jump over it?"

Do little children dress up as pirates and princesses and ask for candy at people's houses? Yes, that's happened to me and it's happened to most people I know. It's called trick-or-treating.

And why's that stupid custom called "trick-or-treating"?

I've never met children dress as devil worshipers (what does a devil worshiper look like, exactly?),

You don't know what children look like dressed up as devil-worshipers, but you can state that you've never seen children dressed up as devil-worshipers?

The point I'm making is that your question assumes a premise that, frankly, isn't true.

Please state what "premise" you are saying I assume in asking my question, which you've not yet answered.

But let's pretend for a moment that there are children running around dressed as a cartoonish devil. No, I don't think that's a problem. The devil isn't a guy in a red suit with horns and a pointy tail.

You don't think it's a problem that they are being trained and encouraged to waste time acting like idiots?

And, who said anything about a suit? The devil is red, insofar as he is a red dragon. And he has horns, insofar as he has 10 of them. And he has a tail, insofar as his tail draws a third part of the stars of heaven and casts them to the earth.

So unless one is getting their theology lessons from cartoons from the early 20th century starring Bugs Bunny, I don't see how this would be an issue.

How would making fun of the devil wrong, exactly?

I do not know what you mean by "making fun of the devil".

It seems to me like one should be consistent:

Either we can set aside days to observe them, even if the Bible does not expressly command it.

Or we can't.

If it is okay to celebrate anniversaries, birthdays, etc, then surely it must be okay to celebrate Christ's birth, Christ's death and resurrection, and/or the lives of God's saints who came before us.

So, you apply your term, "Christian holiday," to all anniversaries, birthdays, etc.?

By "celebrate Christ's birth," do you mean "do all the things that the world does in their festivities centering on 25 December"? What do you mean by that phrase, exactly?

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

The real argument:


The strawman:

OK. So, in other words, you are either too dull to understand, or too disingenuous to admit the elementary truth that asking you a Yes-or-No question about whether or not you believe something is something entirely different than attacking a strawman.

But, since you are embarrassed by the question I asked you, of course you are going to resort to trying to whitewash your failure to answer it by doing something asinine, like calling the question you cannot answer a "strawman". You obviously do not expect to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I take it that, by "the Christian Church," you are referring to some people. But what about other people—those who don't fall in line with such business? Are not any of these people Christians? And, if it is something that some, but not all Christians participate in, then how could it be any more reasonable to refer to it as a "Christian holiday" than it would be to call Fords, "Christian automobiles," since some Christians drive Fords?

Is Amazing Grace only a Christian hymn if every Christian in the world has sung it? A simple yes or no should suffice.

In a previous post, you said, "Hallowe'en, the Eve before the Feast of All Saints, is a Christian observance." Surely, if there's no divine command to "observe" these so-called "Christian observances," then there's also no divine command to call them "Christian observances," or "Christian holidays," right? And there's no divine command to refrain from stating, as I had stated (for which you pounced on me), that they have nothing to do with Christianity. And there's no divine command to pounce on someone for stating that they have nothing to do with Christianity.

You meant "prescribing," right? Is there a commandment prescribing me to call something "the Christian calendar"?

It is perfectly lawful and honoring to God to..."set aside times and seasons" as occasions special to whom?

How is referring to God's commanding the Jews to observe certain days and certain rites relevant to talking about certain days and certain rites God never commanded anybody to observe?

So, basically, all you're telling me is that someone has "set aside" as "special," certain days for you to read history and biography?

Odd question. Obviously, since it is not a moral obligation, it does not need to be a moral obligation.

You had written:


So, I asked you:


You answered:


Then how is it reasonable to "set aside" 1 November to remember 23 February (which is said to be the day of Polycarp's death)?



But not by ALL Christians, right? And if not by ALL Christians, then why would you say "by the Christian Church"? In fact, in some places, you do not even say "the Christian Church," but, instead, you say "the Western Church".



But by your phrase, "the Western Church," you do not mean ALL Christians, right?



You mean like how just because a bank robber drives a car doesn't make driving a car bad?



But I had asked you why you shortchange Halloween in preference to Reformation Day. I asked you that because you had said that "Reformation Day tends to take precedence in Lutheran practice over Halloween". By that, I took you to mean that, if you observe both Halloween and Reformation Day, you observe Halloween somewhat less and Reformation Day somewhat more. And so, I was asking you who authorizes you to observe Halloween less and Reformation Day more.



So, you're free to call certain days, "Christian holidays," but I'm not free to say that it is unreasonable to call them that?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto ALL good works. I take the phrase, "the man of God," to be synonymous with "the Christian". Am I mistaken?

Keep in mind that St. Paul is writing the letter to Timothy, who was a pastor. Which is why Paul instructs Timothy to "preach the word in and out of season".

So I suspect that "man of God" here refers to one who has been called and ordained to ministry. This I believe is further evidenced further, let's continue:

And, I take it that for the man of God to be "perfect" would be for him/her to be complete in his/her Christian faith—that is, complete in his/her Christianity. I take it that Paul is speaking about the Christian being perfect as a Christian, rather than about the Christian being perfect as, say, a bowler, or as a golfer, or as a participant in manmade rites and extra-Biblical doctrine, etc.

Not quite the meaning of "perfect" here. The sense here is of being "fitted", that is, made suitable for a specific use. The pastor is called to a specific kind of vocation--that of being minister of God's word to the Faithful. To that end, the pastor is to be well trained in the Scriptures, and to be able to handle the Scriptures, to be able to teach upon and with them.

Myself, I do not call anything "Christianity" that is neither Bible doctrine nor Bible imperative. Why should I? Why should anyone?

Well, for one, it's a self-defeating proposition. It is a proposition that simply isn't stated in the Bible itself.

Allow me to demonstrate: Where does the Bible list which books are divinely inspired?

Is it permissible to say that the Bible has 66 books even though no where in any of those 66 books is a liist of what books are inspired found. The list of Canonical books is itself extra-biblical.

Though this does raise up another interesting question: Since not all Christians agree on how many books are in the Bible, can we even have a "Christian Bible" to begin with? As per the rationale you provided earlier in this post.

Wait....you can be convinced with Scripture [that there's something in Scripture to defend the proposition, P] WHILE KNOWING that there's nothing in Scripture to defend the proposition, P???

I know that there's nothing in the Bible that supports the proposition that only what is in the Bible can be accepted as part of Christianity.

In the same way I know that there's nothing in the Bible that supports reincarnation, but if someone were to claim to me that it does (and many have), I encourage them to provide evidence of the claim. And, yes, if such evidence does exist (and I simply were ignorant), then I would be convinced that I was wrong.

Would you prefer I had worded it differently? Alright, I am reasonable confident that nothing in Scripture can defend the proposition that only what is in the Bible can be accepted as part of Christianity.

You still haven't provided a biblical defense of that proposition yet, by the way. This would be a great time to demonstrate that I am, indeed, in error on this point.

If, in saying that, you are confident that it is true, then why would you not, ipso facto, think you're infallible in saying it? How could anyone ever not be infallible in believing/saying truth, other than in the sense that they are liable to fall away from believing/saying it?

I'm pretty confident when I say that water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. But that doesn't mean I'm infallible or that I think I'm infallible. It's just that all the evidence which I have thus far been made aware of over the course of my life has led me to be pretty confident that water does, indeed, freeze at 0 degrees Celsius*.

*Depending on atmospheric pressure

Since you're confident that I'm wrong, and that you're right, what, exactly, are you asking me to do by telling me to "back up what [I'm] saying with something more than just [my] say-so"? Since you're confident that I'm wrong, are you not thus confident that I can't "back up what [I'm] saying with something more than just [my] say-so"? And, if you're confident that I can't, then why would you say, "I'm asking you to back up what you're saying...."? That's like saying, "I'm confident you cannot jump over that skyscraper, so will you please jump over it?"

I was hoping that in making the earnest attempt to defend your position you'd learn something, that or show me to be a great big idiot. I certainly could use a few more humility points.

And why's that stupid custom called "trick-or-treating"?

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries kids tended to engage in mischief on Halloween. By the time "trick-or-treating" became popular (after organized candy-giving arose in the 1930's) in the mid 20th century, it pretty much was just something kids said when they went house to house. There's really no "trick" in trick-or-treat, it's just the "treat".

You don't know what children look like dressed up as devil-worshipers, but you can state that you've never seen children dressed up as devil-worshipers?

Tell me what devil worshipers look like and I'll let you know if I've ever seen kids dress up like a devil worshiper.

Please state what "premise" you are saying I assume in asking my question, which you've not yet answered.



You don't think it's a problem that they are being trained and encouraged to waste time acting like idiots?

I don't believe children having fun and enjoying their childhood are wasting time or acting like idiots.

And, who said anything about a suit? The devil is red, insofar as he is a red dragon. And he has horns, insofar as he has 10 of them. And he has a tail, insofar as his tail draws a third part of the stars of heaven and casts them to the earth.

Oh okay.

I do not know what you mean by "making fun of the devil".

As in you don't know the meaning of the words "making fun of"? Or as in you can't conceive of the idea of someone mocking the devil? Or you don't understand how depriving the devil of any respect by letting even our children dress up as "devils" to indicate how powerless he is?

Costumes don't make things scary, they make things less scary. When you depict death as a skeleton, something that ultimately you can laugh at, you have deprived death of power.

So, you apply your term, "Christian holiday," to all anniversaries, birthdays, etc.?

No, why would I?

By "celebrate Christ's birth," do you mean "do all the things that the world does in their festivities centering on 25 December"? What do you mean by that phrase, exactly?

For me it means attending church, but also means setting aside time and space to meditate on these things, and to live the reality of the truth of these things out into the world. Christ is born, Messiah has come, the Child born of Mary is the Eternal Son and Word of the Father: God the Son made flesh. Seems like the sort of thing worth singing and talking about. I mean, the angels certainly weren't quiet about it when it happened.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

OK. So, in other words, you are either too dull to understand, or too disingenuous to admit
the elementary truth that asking you a Yes-or-No question about whether or not you believe something is something entirely different than attacking a strawman.

Your strawman was not a question, it was phrased as an assertion.

But, since you are embarrassed by the question I asked you, of course you are going to resort to trying to whitewash your failure to answer it by doing something asinine, like
calling the question you cannot answer a "strawman". You obviously do not expect to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.

Turning your assertion:

So, according to you, it would be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by this word, "Halloween"?

into a question, the simple answer is "no."

Nor is it wrong for those who observe the feast of All Hallows to call its eve Hallow-een.
It's no different than observance of St. Patrick's Day.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Is Amazing Grace only a Christian hymn if every Christian in the world has sung it? A simple yes or no should suffice.

What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "Christian hymn"? Are you asking me if Amazing Grace was written by a Christian? Are you asking me if the words of Amazing Grace constitute a Bible-based message?

Keep in mind that St. Paul is writing the letter to Timothy, who was a pastor. Which is why Paul instructs Timothy to "preach the word in and out of season".

So I suspect that "man of God" here refers to one who has been called and ordained to ministry. This I believe is further evidenced further, let's continue:

So, according to you:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [NOT that the man who is not called and ordained to ministry] may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Not quite the meaning of "perfect" here. The sense here is of being "fitted", that is, made suitable for a specific use. The pastor is called to a specific kind of vocation--that of being minister of God's word to the Faithful. To that end, the pastor is to be well trained in the Scriptures, and to be able to handle the Scriptures, to be able to teach upon and with them.

"made suitable for a specific use"

Clearly, Paul says "unto ALL good works." Do you wish to tell me that what he meant is "unto ONLY SOME good works"?

Well, for one, it's a self-defeating proposition. It is a proposition that simply isn't stated in the Bible itself.

I do not know what (if anything) you mean by calling a proposition "self-defeating," unless that's just a phrase you use to signify that you don't like a particular proposition. Please tell us what it would be for a proposition to defeat itself.

And, to what proposition are you referring, here? I had simply stated that "I do not call anything "Christianity" that is neither Bible doctrine nor Bible imperative."

And I asked you: Why should I [call anything "Christianity" that is neither Bible doctrine nor Bible imperative? Why should anyone?

You: <NO ANSWER>

Allow me to demonstrate: Where does the Bible list which books are divinely inspired?

By your verb, "list," do you just mean to make a number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively?

The Bible, itself, is literally a list consisting of 66 items, each item being a God-breathed book written or printed consecutively.

Is it permissible to say that the Bible has 66 books even though no where in any of those 66 books is a liist of what books are inspired found.

By your word, "Bible," are you referring to a book consisting of 66 (and only 66) books? If you are not, then you are not referring to the Bible. If you are, then here is what you are saying:

"Is it permissible to say that [a book consisting of 66 (and only 66) books] has 66 books....?"

Well, duh.

The list of Canonical books is itself extra-biblical.

You mean that a list of just the names of those books is extra-biblical?

The Bible, itself, is the Canon—the collection of books that, collectively, constitute the Bible. The Bible is the Canon/the Canon is the Bible. Obviously, the Canon/the Bible, is NOT extra-biblical.

Though this does raise up another interesting question: Since not all Christians agree on how many books are in the Bible, can we even have a "Christian Bible" to begin with?

Here, you're trying to bait me into crossing one of the most asinine rules of this website. Nice try.

I know that there's nothing in the Bible that supports the proposition that only what is in the Bible can be accepted as part of Christianity.

You already said that in your earlier post, no?

But, what you have not done is you have not dealt with the question I asked you:

Wait....you can be convinced with Scripture [that there's something in Scripture to defend the proposition, P] WHILE KNOWING that there's nothing in Scripture to defend the proposition, P???

We can even further genericize this question by simply removing the reference to Scripture, so that we have it thus:

Can you be convinced that the proposition, P, can be defended WHILE KNOWING that P cannot be defended???

And, yes, if such evidence does exist (and I simply were ignorant), then I would be convinced that I was wrong.

You've already claimed that you KNOW the proposition, X. If that is true—if it is true that you KNOW X—then X is true. How could you have been wrong in KNOWING TRUTH?

Would you prefer I had worded it differently? Alright, I am reasonable confident that nothing in Scripture can defend the proposition that only what is in the Bible can be accepted as part of Christianity.

So, you use the phrase, "I am reasonably confident" as a synonym for "I know"?

You still haven't provided a biblical defense of that proposition yet, by the way. This would be a great time to demonstrate that I am, indeed, in error on this point.

A "defense" of that proposition? A defense against what? The proposition I stated is truth. From what does truth need to defended? Does it need to be defended from your refusal to believe it or your speaking ill of it? Why? It's still truth; your refusal to believe it and your speaking ill of it do no harm to it.

Besides, I already gave you a true proposition that entails it. But you didn't like that, and you seem to have told me that Paul meant that Scripture is only profitable for the perfecting and furnishing unto some good works those whom you would call "called and ordained to ministry." You told me that, contrary to what Paul wrote, ALL Scripture is not enough to perfect and throughly furnish unto all good works those who are not pastors. This is because you want extra-scriptural sources to somehow also be necessary to that end.

I'm pretty confident when I say that water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. But that doesn't mean I'm infallible or that I think I'm infallible. It's just that all the evidence which I have thus far been made aware of over the course of my life has led me to be pretty confident that water does, indeed, freeze at 0 degrees Celsius*.

*Depending on atmospheric pressure

Here are two, mutually-contradictory propositions:

1) Water [always] freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.
2) Water does not [always] freeze at 0 degrees Celsius.​

Every proposition (P) is the contradictory of one, and only one, other proposition (~P). Every pair of contradictories consists of one true proposition and one false proposition. If proposition 1 is true, then proposition 2 is false; if proposition 2 is true, then proposition 1 is false. Now, you say that "all the evidence which I have thus far been made aware of" supports proposition 1, right? If that is true, then why would you hesitate to state, "I KNOW, infallibly, that water always freezes at 0 degrees Celsius" or "I cannot (nor can anyone else) be wrong in stating that water always freezes at 0 degrees Celsius"? Since you say that evidence supports proposition 1, would you be willing to say, also, that evidence could support proposition 2?

To say that evidence could/does support BOTH propositions, 1 and 2, is to say that evidence could/does support a false proposition. For someone to say that evidence could/does support a false proposition is for him/her to advertise that his/her doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.

Why don't you try to explain to me how, according to you, while someone is affirming a true proposition, he or she could therein fail to be speaking infallibly. I mean, is not being fallible to be capable of being wrong? But, how could someone be wrong in knowing truth?

I was hoping that in making the earnest attempt to defend your position you'd learn something, that or show me to be a great big idiot. I certainly could use a few more humility points.

Defend my position against what? Against you, someone who errs concerning it? Are you somehow endangering my position by refusing to agree with it? How so? From what does it need to be defended?

.....

 

[ViaCrucis]

What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "Christian hymn"? Are you asking me if Amazing Grace was written by a Christian? Are you asking me if the words of Amazing Grace constitute a Bible-based message?




So, according to you:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [NOT that the man who is not called and ordained to ministry] may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.



"made suitable for a specific use"

Clearly, Paul says "unto ALL good works." Do you wish to tell me that what he meant is "unto ONLY SOME good works"?



I do not know what (if anything) you mean by calling a proposition "self-defeating," unless that's just a phrase you use to signify that you don't like a particular proposition. Please tell us what it would be for a proposition to defeat itself.

And, to what proposition are you referring, here? I had simply stated that "I do not call anything "Christianity" that is neither Bible doctrine nor Bible imperative."

And I asked you: Why should I [call anything "Christianity" that is neither Bible doctrine nor Bible imperative? Why should anyone?

You: <NO ANSWER>



By your verb, "list," do you just mean to make a number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively?

The Bible, itself, is literally a list consisting of 66 items, each item being a God-breathed book written or printed consecutively.



By your word, "Bible," are you referring to a book consisting of 66 (and only 66) books? If you are not, then you are not referring to the Bible. If you are, then here is what you are saying:

"Is it permissible to say that [a book consisting of 66 (and only 66) books] has 66 books....?"

Well, duh.



You mean that a list of just the names of those books is extra-biblical?

The Bible, itself, is the Canon—the collection of books that, collectively, constitute the Bible. The Bible is the Canon/the Canon is the Bible. Obviously, the Canon/the Bible, is NOT extra-biblical.



Here, you're trying to bait me into crossing one of the most asinine rules of this website. Nice try.



You already said that in your earlier post, no?

But, what you have not done is you have not dealt with the question I asked you:



We can even further genericize this question by simply removing the reference to Scripture, so that we have it thus:

Can you be convinced that the proposition, P, can be defended WHILE KNOWING that P cannot be defended???



You've already claimed that you KNOW the proposition, X. If that is true—if it is true that you KNOW X—then X is true. How could you have been wrong in KNOWING TRUTH?



So, you use the phrase, "I am reasonably confident" as a synonym for "I know"?



A "defense" of that proposition? A defense against what? The proposition I stated is truth. From what does truth need to defended? Does it need to be defended from your refusal to believe it or your speaking ill of it? Why? It's still truth; your refusal to believe it and your speaking ill of it do no harm to it.

Besides, I already gave you a true proposition that entails it. But you didn't like that, and you seem to have told me that Paul meant that Scripture is only profitable for the perfecting and furnishing unto some good works those whom you would call "called and ordained to ministry." You told me that, contrary to what Paul wrote, ALL Scripture is not enough to perfect and throughly furnish unto all good works those who are not pastors. This is because you want extra-scriptural sources to somehow also be necessary to that end.



Here are two, mutually-contradictory propositions:

1) Water [always] freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.
2) Water does not [always] freeze at 0 degrees Celsius.​

Every proposition (P) is the contradictory of one, and only one, other proposition (~P). Every pair of contradictories consists of one true proposition and one false proposition. If proposition 1 is true, then proposition 2 is false; if proposition 2 is true, then proposition 1 is false. Now, you say that "all the evidence which I have thus far been made aware of" supports proposition 1, right? If that is true, then why would you hesitate to state, "I KNOW, infallibly, that water always freezes at 0 degrees Celsius" or "I cannot (nor can anyone else) be wrong in stating that water always freezes at 0 degrees Celsius"? Since you say that evidence supports proposition 1, would you be willing to say, also, that evidence could support proposition 2?

To say that evidence could/does support BOTH propositions, 1 and 2, is to say that evidence could/does support a false proposition. For someone to say that evidence could/does support a false proposition is for him/her to advertise that his/her doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.

Why don't you try to explain to me how, according to you, while someone is affirming a true proposition, he or she could therein fail to be speaking infallibly. I mean, is not being fallible to be capable of being wrong? But, how could someone be wrong in knowing truth?



Defend my position against what? Against you, someone who errs concerning it? Are you somehow endangering my position by refusing to agree with it? How so? From what does it need to be defended?

.....

I got through about half of this post, realized that it was just more pointless word games.

Peace homie.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

I got through about half of this post, realized that it was just more pointless word games.

Peace homie.

-CryptoLutheran

Is "homie" what you usually call your friends? Do you usually say "Peace" to your friends, right after insulting them by calling what they say, "pointless word games"? Or are you just trying to sound juvenile?

Note that that's what most people (owing to their chagrin) call questions and criticism they know they have no hope of trying to answer without embarrassing themselves: "word games".

Remember, the substance of all your posts amounts to you telling me that Fords should be called "Christian automobiles" because some Christians drive Fords—and telling me that, regardless of the fact that some Christians do not drive Fords. Why do you imagine that is a rational thing for you to do?

Maybe you call your phrase, "pointless word games," a "Christian insult," because, according to you, some Christians use it when they can't stand up in debate?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is "homie" what you usually call your friends?

Yes.

Do you usually say "Peace" to your friends, right after insulting them by calling what they say, "pointless word games"? Or are you just trying to sound juvenile?

It's not an insult. And yes, I would.

Note that that's what most people (owing to their chagrin) call questions and criticism they know they have no hope of trying to answer without embarrassing themselves: "word games".

Remember, the substance of all your posts amounts to you telling me that Fords should be called "Christian automobiles" because some Christians drive Fords—and telling me that, regardless of the fact that some Christians do not drive Fords. Why do you imagine that is a rational thing for you to do?

Maybe you call your phrase, "pointless word games," a "Christian insult," because, according to you, some Christians use it when they can't stand up in debate?

I hope your day is well.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

"Halloween" didn't come from Satan.

Hallow-een is the eve of All Hallows (deceased saints; i.e., spirits) Day.

It is the correct name for the day before All Hallows Day.

Note that among the Roman Catholics, who I am not a member of, All Saints Day specifically commemorates the canonized saints and also any saints not yet canonized, e.g. unknown to the Church, whereas in Eastern Orthodoxy and liturgical Protestantism, it likewise commemorates the same thing, everyone in heaven, known or unknown, and in Orthodoxy, if you take a name of someone not venerated as a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy, your feast day is All Saints Day, which they celebrate on the First Sunday after Pentecost, which is Trinity Sunday in the West (for Pentecost is both a celebration of the descent of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity, so the parish feast of churches dedicated to the Holy Trinity is Pentecost, just as in the Armenian Church, and historically, every church, the Nativity and Baptism of Christ are celebrated together on Theophany (January 6th, also known as Epiphany, but in the West that traditionally referred to a separate celebration of the Visitation of the Three Magi on the same calendar day).

However, because the Roman Catholics also believe in purgatory, they also have All Souls Day on November 2nd, which is traditionally in the Old Latin Mass celebrated with a requiem, black vestments and something in lieu of the body, but of the same proportions, I forget what they call it, but basically a requiem for all souls in Purgatory.

The Orthodox have occasions like this in the form of Soul Saturdays, to pray for the souls of those not known to be in heaven, however, they do not believe in purgatory, but they do, in the manner of CS Lewis, believe in prayer for the deceased. Also some Eastern Orthodox believe, based on certain statements of Christ, in a doctrine more frightening than purgatory, but it is not universally believed in, and I don’t think the Oriental Orthodox accept it at all.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is there nothing wrong with dressing up like devils and devil-worshipers and pretending to threaten mischief against those who do not give you something you demand they give you gratis? YES or NO?

That’s debated, but in general, I am going to say that since the children mean no harm, the worst thing we can do on Halloween is refuse them our hospitality. But for our own children, I think it is better they dress up as tigers or pirates or heroic figures, and not as devils.

Now regarding the Pope, he is irrelevant, because the Eastern churches, who were never under his control, and who were excommunicated for refusing to accept Papal supremacy and other novel Roman Catholic doctrines in 1054, celebrate the Feast of All Saints on the same day as Trinity Sunday is celebrated in the West, and they do it without anyone dressing up or any morbidity. The usual liturgical color is Green, symbolizing New Life, which is also the liturgical color on Pentecost and Palm Sunday in the Slavonic Eastern Orthodox churches, although gold is also used, the Typikon merely specifies “light” and “dark” rather than exact liturgical colors, and so, the Greeks, for example, are often more flexible, especially at monasteries.

 

[The Liturgist]

And, to what proposition are you referring, here? I had simply stated that "I do not call anything "Christianity" that is neither Bible doctrine nor Bible imperative."

That seems an error of semantics, because Christianity is a religious identification that people use; we can dispute what is properly Christian, although accusing a church or member on ChristianForums who follows the Statement of Faith of not being Christian is something I have been told we should avoid, and there are alternate ways of expressing disapproval of doctrine without accusing someone of rejecting faith in Christ, which seem more appropriate in the case of controversial issues like whether or not a given practice is Scripturally defensible; for example, I have come to reject Nuda Scriptura, which some people call Sola Scriptura, on the basis of 1 Thessalonians 2:15, but I would never call anyone who adheres to it non-Christian, although I do believe it to be an erroneous doctrine.

Because the Christian community is highly diverse on CF.com, and God wants us to love each other foremost, while adhering to correct doctrine, it behooves us to express our beliefs on doctrine in a loving manner, that is respectful of others without downplaying the importance of our own beliefs.