Pristine Grace
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 67

Thread: What does the word "means" mean to you?

  1. #41
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Just one note of clarification before i start new threads: I have always opposed any notion of a 'law of contradiction' that God created, this was my disagreement with our old contributor Disciple. I do not believe any quotation of mine can be found that supports the existence of such a law ordained by God--I have opposed this consistently, vigorously, and passionately. Bro Bob

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (01-29-19)

  3. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Dear Robert!

    I am convinced that, in theory, you disagree wholeheartedly with the fact that God is subject to the logical law of contradiction. In practice, however, you constantly subordinate God to the law of contradiction. Robert, you write, "I do not believe any quotation of mine can be found that supports the existence of such a law ordered by God--I have opposed this consistently, vigorously, and passionately."

    I provide you with a quote from your post in this thread of the forum (post 22):

    "....there is a limit to the the nation that God is free (i.e., He cannot deny himself, He cannot hate himself, He cannot sin against Himself, and most importantly in this focus, He cannot think and act contrary to His nature!)".

    Consider the first statement from the list of what God cannot: "He cannot deny himself".

    From a logical point of view, the proposition that God cannot deny himself is based on the logical law of contradiction. And if God cannot act contrary to the law of contradiction, it inevitably follows that he is subject to this law. The same applies to all the other "He cannot"you have stated.

    With love in Christ to you Robert!

    Vadim

    P/S

    Please do not transfer this thread of the forum, as I am preparing a post in which I clearly and explicitly present their position. The dispute is not about the immutability of God, but about epistemology! This is consistent with the theme of this branch of the forum.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Simplici For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (01-29-19)

  5. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    I am starting, as I promised, to publish messages outlining my position. I have divided my presentation into 3 parts:

    1) the Absurdity of the traditional Church doctrine of God
    2) Why traditional theology came to this false doctrine of God
    3) how does the traditional doctrine of God affect preaching and faith

    PART 1 the Absurdity of the traditional Church doctrine of God

    In the beginning, I will quote the message Robert Higbee. In it he very briefly and clearly sets out the traditional doctrine of the nature and will of God. Quote:
    "On this one I would propose that we have to distinguish clearly between the logic of unregenerate philosophers (there is MUCH, of course) and that of regenerate believers. Yes, there is no created law of God that he is bound by. However, I would point out that since God thinks and feels emotionally in an immutable manner (another point where I agree with Raymond and not Clark), these are expressions of His actual nature which is immutable: God never has variations in what or how He thinks and feels! He acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise! So where I might agree that God is absolutely free where man is not free in the sense that his purposes and actions are beyond the right of any creation to criticize, there is a limit to the nation that God is free (i.e., He cannot deny himself, He cannot hate himself, He cannot sin against Himself, and most importantly in this focus, He cannot think and act contrary to His nature!). So if we accept that God is absolutely immutable, then there is a limit on the motion that He has the absolute free-will that creatures do not have. Regenerate beings even in eternity future will not have free-will except to live according to God's eternal purposes for them. Likewise, God is free only to think and act according to the restrain of His essential nature." Robert Higby (post 22)

    "But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully" (1Ti.1: 8).
    To paraphrase the Apostle Paul we can say: Logic is good if someone uses it logically.

    Consider from this perspective the following traditional theological view: "the Will of God and his omnipotence are limited by the nature of God." From this definition we will logically inevitably receive the limitation of God's nature. Then we must define: "the Will of God and his omnipotence are limited by the limitations of the nature of God." Now we can define who God is: "God is a being with a limited nature and therefore limited in the freedom of his will and therefore limited in his omnipotence." Consider this definition in more detail.
    1) Can this creature be called an omnipotent creature from the point of view of logic? No. Because from a logical point of view, the omnipotence which has limitations is not omnipotence. Limited omnipotence is an oxymoron. Therefore God has only limited power. Logic does not allow to call this creature omnipotent.
    2) Can we say that this creature has free will? No. Since from a logical point of view, free will which has limitations is not free. Non-free freedom is an oxymoron. Therefore, God has only limited freedom. Logic does not allow us to say that this creature has freedom in the literal sense of the word.
    3) Can we say that this being is infinite in nature? No. Because from a logical point of view, the nature which has limitations is not infinite. Limited infinity is an oxymoron. Therefore, God has only a limited nature. Logic does not allow us to call this creature infinite. However, logic inevitably forces us to recognize that this creature is finite.
    Sum up. We've got a creature with finite nature, limited power and limited freedom of will.

    Does this being correspond to what is revealed to us about God in Scripture? Definitely not. Does this being correspond to the definition of God as a Supreme Being? Definitely not. This means that the above entity is not a God nor from the point of view of Scripture, nor from the point of view of logic. This creature resembles a figure of Zeus, who himself told Chrysippus about the limitations of his nature. The concept of the" One " of the pagan philosopher Plotinus is undoubtedly higher than the creature we have just described, as it knows no limits! However, the limited being that I have just described, theologians call God! From Roman Catholic theologians to Hyper-Calvinist theologians! Moreover, they do not even notice the absurdity of their doctrine! However, atheist philosophers are well aware of this. Therefore, the atheist Ludwig Feuerbach taught that " God " is the projection of man on the screen of infinity. Indeed, the creature I have just described is none other than human. "... Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man... (Ro.1:22,23)

    Result:
    From the point of view of logic, "limited God" is an oxymoron.
    In terms of faith, "limited God" is idolatry.

    How did theology come to the doctrine of the "limited God" which is logically absurd and contrary to the teaching of Scripture and contrary to Christian faith? It's all about epistemology. In the uncritical acceptance by theology of the rationalist methods of pagan speculative philosophy. And above all to blame in this situation belief in the universality of logical methods. I want to write about this in the second part.
    This is a very serious question! This question concerns the Foundation of our faith! We cannot carelessly say that Gordon Clark, for example, was simply philosophically wrong when he taught that God is logic, and logic is God. We need to be clear that Clark has come to idolatry. The wrath of God burns with respect to any idolatry. The wrath of God burns in relation to any doctrine of "limited God"!

    Grace and peace in Christ to all brothers and sisters!

    Vadim
    Last edited by Simplici; 01-29-19 at 07:24 AM.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Simplici For This Useful Post:

    Bob Higby (01-30-19), Brandan (01-29-19)

  7. #44
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Vadim,

    Don't misinterpret what I am saying here. You are getting overly semantic and there are definite semantic barriers here. It is wrong for you to accuse other believers of idolatry based on semantic differences. I am talking about differences based on the perceived meaning of words in English, or for that matter, words in any language. When a word is used by a teacher, it is of utmost importance that anyone challenging the use of that word has an affirmation from the 'horses mouth' (as we call it in English) that the position taken by the challenged teacher is accurately stated.

    I would agree with you that I may have chosen a poor word if I stated that God is 'limited' in His freedom. Of course He is not. I agree with you that His freedom is absolute. In addition to confessing that, we need to clearly define what the Bible states the pleasure of God is in His freedom, immutability, potency, goodness, infinity, and transcendence. On the matter of the salvation of mankind He has revealed this to us in His personal appearance in the incarnation of Christ and in His written Word.

    We know that God states He will accomplish all of His pleasure in His predestinarian counsels (Isa. 46:10 in context). This needs to be understood in the context of the everlasting covenant of Grace. When God cuts a covenant of promise as He did with Abraham in Genesis 15, He is stating that He is bound by His own covenant and will not break it in harmony with His immutable nature. The very fact that God is 'bound' in this sense would be viewed by some as denying His absolute freedom. But fulfilling this covenant is His pleasure and is in harmony with His own immutable nature, so the fact that God would bind Himself to a covenant it is an expression of God's absolute freedom. There is no contradiction here between God's freedom and God's constraining Himself to an everlasting covenant that will surely come to pass no matter what.

    Religious determinists like Mohammed teach that God in His freedom can and does change His mind continuously. Any promise that God has made He might choose to revoke and do the opposite at any time. To me the covenant is the apex of understanding the difference between a pure philosophic or religious determinism and the God of all Grace revealed in Christ and His scriptural revelation. So when I say that God cannot deny Himself in His covenant promises, I'm stating that He chooses to be bound by any covenant promises that He makes--otherwise we don't have full assurance of faith in our ultimate salvation in Christ.

    Bob

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (01-30-19), Pam (01-30-19), Simplici (01-30-19)

  9. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Dear Robert!
    You have made a number of clear and unambiguous statements. There is no ambiguity in these statements. So semantics has nothing to do with it.
    Here are your statements:

    1) He acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise!
    2) there is a restraint to the the notion that God is free (i.e., He cannot deny himself, He cannot hate himself, He cannot sin against Himself, and most importantly in this focus, He cannot think and act contrary to His nature!)
    3) So if we accept that God is absolutely immutable, then there is a limit on the motion that He has the absolute free-will that creatures do not have.
    4) Likewise, God is free only to think and act according to the restrain of His essential nature.
    5) Also, I stand by my qualification to the proposition that God is absolutely free: he cannot deny Himself, he cannot fail, he cannot lie, he cannot sin against Himself, he cannot act contrary to His own nature and disposition (a factor in His immutability). So if we believe all of those things that God cannot do are true as revealed in the scripts He has given to mankind, I affirm the in infinity of God beyond all of that: in his transcendent essence He is absolutely free to act as He pleases.

    All of the above your statements do the following:

    1) they limit the nature of God.
    2) they limit God's will to the limited nature of God.
    3) they limit God's omnipotence to the limitations of God's nature
    4) they in fact put God in submission to the logical law of contradiction
    5) they turn God into the Persian king Darius who cannot abolish the law which he himself gave. I'm not talking about God's desire, I'm talking about God's inability (He cannot!). I'm talking about God's inability that stems from the limitations of God's nature.
    6) They give such definition of omnipotence God which can be applied to power my a: He can to do all except moreover what he not can to do. Thus they put the Creator and the creation on the same ontological level.
    7) They tell us that the Scripture allegedly reveals to us certain essential limitations of God which do not depend on the will of God.
    8) If you collect all together, those of your statements that I quoted above, then it logically and inevitably gives a picture of a "limited God."

    In light of the above, I have two questions for you:

    Question one: do you refuse your statements I have quoted above? If you refuse these statements, then the question is removed. If you do not reject these allegations, then my criticism and my conclusions remain valid.

    The second question: do you Consider the immutability of God the essential limitation of the nature of God? Or do you consider God's immutability to be an expression of his absolutely free will and desire?

    Vadim

  10. #46
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    I suppose it’s a matter of will not instead of can not. God CAN do anything. HE IS ABSOLUTELY FREEE. There are no constraints. But we know HE WILL NOT do certain things. This is a matter of semantics. Here in the west when we say we can’t do something it often means we WON’T do something. I cannot beat my wife. We all knew I could if I wanted to, but I just can’t. I simply won’t!
    This is my signature.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Greg (01-30-19), Pam (01-30-19), Simplici (01-30-19)

  12. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Hi Brandаn!

    I'd be happy if it was a matter of semantics. However, I have serious concerns that this is not the case.

    Here are my very serious concerns:

    1) a) He acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise!
    b) Likewise, God is free only to think and act according to the restrain of His essential nature.
    с) So if we accept that God is absolutely immutable, then there is a limit on the motion that He has the absolute free-will

    In these examples, the limited nature of God acts as a cause. Limited freedom of the will of God plays the role of the investigation. There is a causal link. The limitations of God's nature produce the limitations of God's will. This refutes the view that here the question is only in semantics.

    2) the question of the actual submission of God to the logical law of contradiction Has not been resolved. (my message is 42).All statements that this is not so are refuted by the practice of reasoning which in fact subordinate God to the law of contradiction.

    I would very much like to have full agreement between us on all issues, but the Truth of my God is more precious to me.

    Vadim
    Last edited by Simplici; 01-30-19 at 01:37 PM.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Simplici For This Useful Post:

    Razor (01-30-19)

  14. #48
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    OK, well I don't have any problems reconciling your position with Bob's. I'm convinced it's semantics. Grace and Peace!
    This is my signature.

  15. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Ок, Brandаn! If you are sure that all disagreement is in semantics, how did you solve the problems outlined in my post 47?

  16. #50
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    a) He acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise!


    I read this to say, He acts according to His will, He will not do otherwise!


    b) Likewise, God is free only to think and act according to the restrain of His essential nature.


    I read this to say, God only thinks according to what He decides to do. When talking about "restraint" from God, it's merely according to His will. We all know God CAN do anything He wants, and He is not restrained. However, we also know that He WON'T do what He has not purposed to do. You could call this a constraint, but in reality, it's just God doing what He purposed to do. Either way, it means the same thing to me.


    с) So if we accept that God is absolutely immutable, then there is a limit on the motion that He has the absolute free-will


    I read this to say, God is absolutely immutable because that is what He has purposed to be. If you want to call His purpose a constraint OR limit, it's ok, means the same thing to me. Bottom line God does and is what He says. I know He is immutable and will remain immutable not because of any constraint upon Him, but because God says He does not change. It's who He has purposed to be. He WILL NOT change. HE IS immutable. If someone wants to say He is constrained by His immutability, it doesn't bother me. All it means is He will be what He says He will be. God is still absolutely free and not constrained in reality. The use of constraining words like can't are human expressions to describe what God says He has purposed. It is not an oxymoron - just a figure of speech - a human way of speaking.
    This is my signature.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Pam (01-30-19)

  18. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Hi Brandan!

    In light of your response to my post, the discussion is beginning to take on a surreal character...

    It turns out that the thought: "He acts out of the constraint of His own nature" is the same as: "He acts according to His will"! It's just killing any language as someone who makes sense to us! The way you interpret Robert's lyrics is called eisegesis. That is, the introduction into the text of such an understanding of the text that does not correspond to the direct meaning of the text. I hope that you do not interpret Scripture by this method! I'm sure you don't do that. By this method I can turn the canons of the Council of Trent into a confession of faith in high grace! (it's hyperbole)

    1) He acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise!

    2) He acts according to His will, He will not do otherwise!

    Thought number one and thought number two are two completely different thoughts! If you're honest with yourself, you can't deny it. With the first thought, I strongly disagree. With the second thought I agree completely. The same could be said about all following your explanations of the texts of Robert. Robert's texts need no interpretation. Robert himself expresses his thoughts very clearly. It's obvious. I understand very well what you're both writing about.

    This once again proves that the problem is not in semantics. In addition, the question of God's practical submission to the law of contradiction remains unresolved.

    Over our discussion hung the darkness of postmodernism in which the texts do not have their own independent meaning. The interpreter himself brings meaning to the text. Accordingly, our discussion is beginning to lose any sense. It's very sad...

    Vadim

    P/S

    I don't consider Robert an idolater. I believe his theology does not adequately Express his faith and teaching of Scripture. I am not a supporter of Socrates ' naive ethical rationalism, so I think this situation is possible.

    I made an addition to the original text of the message, which I highlighted in blue.
    Last edited by Simplici; 01-30-19 at 07:52 PM.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Simplici For This Useful Post:

    Razor (01-30-19)

  20. #52
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    Hi Vadim,

    I understand your frustration, but that's how we talk over here in America. The phrase "I just can't - I just can't" is one that I and others use often. But the real meaning is "I won't" depending on the context of the discussion. I don't know if this is common in Russian, but it is here.

    The phrases, "God can't stop being God" and "God won't stop being God" mean the same thing to me. God can't stop being God because He WILLS NOT to stop being God. Therefore the "constraint" is just a way of talking - it's an expression of "WILL NOT".

    Gen 6:6, (KJV), And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    Ask yourself, did the writer of Genesis blaspheme the Lord when He wrote this? Or did he try to explain in human terms the abhorrence of sin that God has? Take those words at face value, and you can build a doctrine of open theism - which many have! Is it postmodernism to say that those words don't actually mean that God changed?

    You may think that this is "very sad", and you're right. But I've known my brother Bob a long time, and I know not to criticize him when I first see something that doesn't sit right with me. I take time to try and understand where he is coming from. All of us believe that God does as He pleases. That He does everything that He desires. That He is absolutely free. That should be enough for all of us. And as a fallen people, we are often inconsistent with our speech and sin every day. Of course, that doesn't mean we should not try to clarify what it is we actually mean, and try to overcome the limitations of our languages.

    You wrote: "I don't consider Robert an idolater. I believe his theology does not adequately Express his faith." Brother, I'm right there with him. I know my theology does not adequately express my faith. I hope to learn more and more and to grow in the goodness of His grace.

    Gospel Blessings,
    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Pam (01-30-19)

  22. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Brandаn! I understand.

    1) Man is not able to fly in accordance with the limitations of his essential nature. This means that the man himself in his free will refuses to fly

    2) When the person is breathing then he acts under compulsion of his own nature, he cannot do otherwise! This means that the person in his free will decided to breathe.

    3) If we accept that a person is mortal, then there is a limit to the duration of his life. This means that a person in free will decides not to live forever.

    4) etc.

    As you can see, I'm a good student. Last question: are you satisfied with the level of honesty of the discussion? You don't have to answer that question to me personally. Answer this question to yourself.

    I think the continuation of the discussion is absolutely meaningless.

  23. #54
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Simplici View Post
    Brandаn! I understand.
    Based on what you wrote, I don't think that you do. I don't think you understand the nuances of our language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simplici
    Last question: are you satisfied with the level of honesty of the discussion? You don't have to answer that question to me personally. Answer this question to yourself.
    Yes, I am satisfied. I wouldn't have posted it publicly if I didn't think it personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simplici
    I think the continuation of the discussion is absolutely meaningless.
    I am not finding any fruitfulness in it at this time. But who knows? Anyway, Gospel blessings to you Vadim. - B.
    This is my signature.

  24. #55
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    One more final note, here in Missouri, where I grew up, we would use English very improperly. For example, I'd ask my mom, "Can we go to the park today?" I wasn't asking in a FORMAL sense. I was asking in the informal sense. "Can we go" really meant, "may we go?" English teachers here are constantly correcting their students over this! One must be willing to try and understand what the speaker is trying to convey. As brothers, we should be willing to give the benefit of doubt to each other.
    This is my signature.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Pam (01-31-19)

  26. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    22
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandan View Post
    One more final note, here in Missouri, where I grew up, we would use English very improperly. For example, I'd ask my mom, "Can we go to the park today?" I wasn't asking in a FORMAL sense. I was asking in the informal sense. "Can we go" really meant, "may we go?" English teachers here are constantly correcting their students over this! One must be willing to try and understand what the speaker is trying to convey. As brothers, we should be willing to give the benefit of doubt to each other.
    I had to learn three languages.

    West Virginia English,Texas English and Louisiana English.

    The struggle is real.

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Razor For This Useful Post:

    Bob Higby (02-01-19), Brandan (01-30-19), Pam (01-31-19)

  28. #57
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    ALL:

    Thanks for all of your posts and thoughts on this issue, I have been involved in much personal work and responsibilities lately and haven't had opportunity to log in and respond myself.

    I especially thank Brandan for his honest clarifications in dealing with the issue.

    Often some matters become clear by asking questions having to do with contrasting what is affirmed by its opposite. That is what I will do here with Vadim.

    He (God) acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise!

    So,if you disagree with this, it is imperative to me that an example be given where God might act contrary to His essential nature. You have said earlier that the essence of God is something unknowable to us and that might be the answer you would retreat to, I just don't know. For me there is no contradiction between God's nature, attributes, and what He has promised He will do with an oath.

    Likewise, God is free only to think and act according to the restrain of His essential nature. This is my statement. I want an example of where God is free to think and act contrary to His essential nature and that would clear up the opposition for me.

    So if we accept that God is absolutely immutable, then there is a limit on the motion that He has the absolute free-will.
    I may have gone too far on this one and I admit it was a poor choice of words. God does have absolute free will. So the constraint or limit is on what He has promised to do in His revelation. He will not will to choose contrary to His covenant and purposes, that is what we can be confident of. We know He won't decide tomorrow to go back on His covenant and send every member of humanity to damnation for their sinful rebellion. That fact is the reason I chose the 'limit on free-will' language but I have modified that here.

    In these examples, the limited nature of God acts as a cause. Limited freedom of the will of God plays the role of the investigation. There is a causal link. The limitations of God's nature produce the limitations of God's will. This refutes the view that here the question is only in semantics. I do not believe the nature of God itself is limited in any sense, He does ALL according to His purposes and pleasure. So yes, it is not an issue of semantics in this particular case. It is an issue of misunderstanding between us though.

    The question of the actual submission of God to the logical law of contradiction Has not been resolved. (my message is 42). All statements that this is not so are refuted by the practice of reasoning which in fact subordinate God to the law of contradiction. . Vadim, you have lost me here. I have never taught that God is subject to a law of contradiction, I don't believe He created such a law and I don't believe it exists. That law is the creation of man to avoid facing the truth on all eternally relevant matters. I will defend that my statements when finally analyzed are not contradictory.

    In any case Vadim, I immensely appreciate your honesty and passion to defend truth.

    Bro. Bob

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

    Brandan (02-01-19), Pam (02-01-19), Simplici (02-01-19)

  30. #58
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    Thank you Bob. While I disagree with Vadim’s position that this is more than semantics (at least as it pertains to us) I do agree we probably shouldn’t use constraining words to describe God. From now on I will try not use the words, “God can’t.” It will be, “God won’t.” I do greatly appreciate the zeal Vadim has for the truth.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

    Simplici (02-01-19)

  32. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Dear Robert, thank you for your answer!

    My answer to you:

    1) Robert Higby: "He (God) acts out of the constraint of His own nature, He cannot do otherwise! " So, if you disagree with this, it is imperative to me that an example be given where God might act contrary to His essential nature. You have said earlier that the essence of God is something unknown to us and that might be the answer you would retreat to, I just don't know. For me there is no contradiction between God's nature, attributes, and what He has promised He will do with an oath.
    Vadim: there is a substitution of concepts. The thought, " God cannot act contrary to his essential nature," and the thought, "He (God) acts out of the constraint of His own nature," are two very different thoughts. In the first case we are talking about the conformity of God's actions with his essential nature. It's just tautology. In the second case we are talking about God's compliance with the limitations of his essential nature. From what inevitably follows the picture of "limited God". In the first case we deal with nature in the second case with restrictions. I was talking about restrictions!

    2) Robert Higby: "Likewise, God is free only to think and act according to the restrain of His essential nature. This is my statement. I want an example of where God is free to think and act contrary to His essential nature and that would clear up the opposition for me".

    Vadim: it's the Same old substitution of one concepts of "limits of nature" , a different concept of "nature" in paragraph 1. The answer is the same as in paragraph 1. My position on this issue is: "Suppose that God's will is limited by His nature. God's nature is infinite. Therefore God's will is infinite in its freedom. That is, the will of God is absolutely free. Therefore, the will of God does not have absolute freedom, only if the nature of God is not infinite, but limited. That is, if God does not meet the definition of who God is". The infinite nature does not impose any restrictions on actions.

    3) Robert Higby: So if we accept that God is absolutely immutable, then there is a limit on the motion that He has the absolute free-will. I may have gone too far on this one and I admit it was a poor choice of words. God does have absolute free will. So the constraint or limit is on what He has promised to do in His revelation. He will not will to choose contrary to His covenant and purposes, that is what we can be confident of. We know He won't decide tomorrow to go back on His covenant and send every member of humanity to damnation for their sinful rebellion. That fact is the reason I choose the 'limit on free-will' language but I have modified that here.


    Vadim: A certain sequence of chosen words expresses certain concepts. This is the essence of language. When you changed the words you actually changed the concept. I fully agree with this change. God does not want to break the Covenant - that is a different concept. God could theoretically break the Covenant. And in this case no one can object to God! But God absolutely freely wants the opposite. This leads us to the exact opposite concept! God's faithfulness to the Covenant is an actualization of God's absolute freedom, and does not come from some limitation in God's nature or from God's voluntary restriction of his freedom. I detest any attempt by an unbeliever mind to make the will of God dependent on an intrinsic necessity based on some essential limitations of his nature, in order to obtain a guarantee of salvation. The belief in the indestructibility of the Covenant of Grace, which is based on God's immutability understood as an essential limitation of God's nature, is an example of yet another unholy absurdity in dogma history. This doctrine steals glory from God who actualizes his absolute freedom in the salvation of the elect! This teaching offends the love of God!

    4) Robert Higby: in these examples, the limited nature of God acts as a cause. Limited freedom of the will of God plays the role of the investigation. There is a causal link. The limits of God's nature produce the limits of God's will. This refers the view that here the question is only in semantics. I do not believe the nature of God itself is limited in any sense, He does ALL according to His purposes and pleasure. So yes, it is not an issue of semantics in this particular case. It is an issue of misunderstanding between us though.

    Vadim: the problem of misunderstanding between us arose due to the fact that your verbal constructions and selection of words expressed a causal relationship. A causal relationship between the limitation of God's nature and the restriction of God's free will. Robert, I can only learn your thoughts from your lyrics! So the problem was the inadequacy of your words to your thoughts. I'm glad you don't believe it that way!

    5) Robert Higby: The question of the actual submission of God to the logical law of contradiction Has not been resolved. (my message is 42). All statements that this is not so are refuted by the practice of reasoning which in fact subordinate God to the law of contradiction. . Vadim, you have lost me here. I have never thought that God is subject to a law of contradiction, I don't believe He created such a law and I don't believe it exists. That law is the creation of man to avoid facing the truth on all eternally relevant matters. I will defend that my statements when finally analyzed are not contradictory.

    Vadim: I would like to receive not a Declaration, but a demonstration that God is not under the logical law of contradiction. (In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ~(p & ~p)(Wikipedia)).That's the law I meant. My question to you is: is God subject to the logical law of non-contradiction? So for the final clarification of your position, I ask you an ancient theological question: can God create a square circle?

    6) the Definition: "God cannot act contrary to his essential nature" is very dangerous. This definition makes sense only if it is implied that, in theory, such a possibility exists. If such a possibility exists, then we logically inevitably get the limited nature of God and, accordingly, the picture of the "limited God". If such a theoretical possibility is not allowed, then this definition does not make sense since it is a tautology.

    7) I've been thrown out of his own theological dictionary the term "nature of God". This term is a reception in the Christian theology of Greek metaphysics. In Greek metaphysics, impersonal, eternal truths stand above the will of gods and men. The fathers of the Church made the "nature of God"the seat of these truths. After that, they made the will of God strictly subordinate to the abstract "nature of God". Thus a new version of Greek metaphysics began to reign in Christian theology: the Eternal truths in the nature of God are located above the will of God, the will of God is located above the will of people. All are ruled by impersonal eternal truths that our regenerated mind can know, and thus know the "nature of God." The metaphysics of Scripture is the exact opposite of Greek metaphysics. God is incomprehensible in his essence. God's absolutely free will freely creates all truths. Accordingly, all truths are created by God. Therefore, the Scripture says that God is the Truth, because he is the free Creator of all truths.

    8) I make a clear and strict distinction between God and Scripture. I draw a distinction between God revealing to us in Scripture his will (Deus revelatus), and God hidden in his essence (Deus absconditus). The essence of God is completely unknowable by the transcendence of God to our thinking. The only way to know God is to know God through his will. His will is revealed to us in the Scripture. Knowing God in Scripture is knowing the will of God, not the abstract "nature of God." Logic applies to Scripture because in Scripture God descends to human insignificance and limitation. Applying Aristotle's logic to the knowledge of God's hidden, transcendent essence is the madness leading to idolatry. This is essentially Luther's metaphysical and epistemological position. I fully agree with her. So if anyone wants to label me, I'm Hyper-Lutheran, not Hyper-Calvinist.

    9) If our disagreements are not conceptual, but semantic in nature, the reason for this is not a language barrier, but a serious inadequacy in the verbal expression of your thoughts. I'm sorry, Robert, but it is. So Brandаn is wrong about this point. The reason is not the language barrier.

    Yours faithfully, Vadim

    P/S
    Trying to bring theology in line with Scripture, we must throw away the terminology of the old speculative scholastic theology. She's dangerous! This terminology hides concepts that are hostile to Scripture.

    Mercy and peace in Christ to you Robert and Brandаn!

    I made a change to the original text of the message for clearer expression of his thoughts. The change is highlighted in green. In Russian, the "law of non-contradiction "is usually referred to as the"law of contradiction".
    Last edited by Simplici; 02-03-19 at 05:08 AM.

  33. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    59
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Dear Robert!

    Robert Higby message 17:

    Thanks so much in the Lord Simplici!

    We had a thread way back in 2004 on the issue of "Does God Observe the Law of Contradiction". A contributor to our forum at that time happily answered 'yes' and I challenged this notion very firmly, quoting a former Australian colleague of mine who had left gospel faith and promoted this humanist 'law of contradiction':

    The universe is both planned and unplanned, fixed in purpose and yet open, operating according to both absolute law and no law at all, beautiful in its harmony yet awful in its unpredictability, predestined but constantly subject to undetermined change.

    So I cannot provide a better example of the ultimate conclusions of paradox theology than this, it is a truly classic example!

    Bro. Bob

    I have read your message 17 carefully and suspect that you are using the term "law of contradiction" as a synonym for the term "paradox." However it is not! The term " law of contradiction "is another name for the term"Law of non-contradiction". This is even shown by the English Wikipedia: "in logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true, e. g. the two propositions" a is B "and" a is not B " are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ~(p & ~p) ".The term " law of contradiction "in my messages should be understood as"Law of non-contradiction". What do you mean by the Term "law of contradiction"? I look forward to your answer on this question!

    Yours faithfully, Vadim.

    I made a change to the original message.
    Last edited by Simplici; 02-03-19 at 08:32 AM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •