Two Questions For Not Ready

[David Sklansky]

Your stance is that there are very good, clearcut, reasons to believe in Christianity rather than Islam. Reasons that make you virtually certain that Christianity is correct and Islam isn't.

1. Are the reasons to believe in Protestantism rather than Cathlicism, as good and as clearcut as the Christianity vs, Islam question? Are you equally certain that Protestantism is correct and Cathlicism isn't as in the Christianity vs, Islam question?

2. Are the reasons to believe in your particular sect of Protestantism (predestination, Calvinism, or whatever you call it) rather than other sects of Protestanism (that don't beleive this stuff) as good and as clearcut as the Christianity vs, Islam question? Are you equally certain that your sect of Protestantism, is correct and the other sects aren't, as in the Christianity vs. Islam question?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Are the reasons to believe in Protestantism rather than Cathlicism, as good and as clearcut as the Christianity vs, Islam question? Are you equally certain that Protestantism is correct and Cathlicism isn't as in the Christianity vs, Islam question?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe some of the doctrinal differences between what I believe and Catholics are as clear cut, but those doctrines are not related to salvation. For example, the infallibility of the pope. I feel very certain this is incorrect, but someone can believe it and still be saved, or for that matter be a much better Christian than me. Catholic and Protestant doctrine are much the same concerning salvation, though there are some nuances that I don't think affect salvation. It would be wrong to say I believe Catholicism is incorrect without much qualification. The reason Islam is so different (and there are some areas of agreement between Islam and Christianity) is they differ on major doctrines, especially relating to Christ - which is true of Judaism as well. But mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism (at least historically) are very close on matters related to Christ and salvation.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Are the reasons to believe in your particular sect of Protestantism (predestination, Calvinism, or whatever you call it) rather than other sects of Protestanism (that don't beleive this stuff) as good and as clearcut as the Christianity vs, Islam question? Are you equally certain that your sect of Protestantism, is correct and the other sects aren't, as in the Christianity vs. Islam question?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is similar to the Catholic question though the differences aren't as sharp on the non-salvation doctrines, and I'm uncertain about what I believe in some of the more difficult areas - perhaps it's more a matter of vocabulary than doctrine. Actually, there is no denomination or thelogian I agree with 100% - but there is no doctrine I believe that isn't held by some denomination or major theologian. The church hasn't done much better than Israel did, maybe worse in some areas.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
...is they differ on major doctrines, especially relating to Christ - which is true of Judaism as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since there is a large dispute relating to Christ, i'm curious to why you have unequivocally disagreed with Judaism and others.

[David Sklansky]

OK. Good enough. Now I'd like to know whether you agree with Peter666 that studying and knowing the non salvation nuances can be mean a more heavenly heaven?

[BluffTHIS!]

You have let NR off the hook too easily. He is basically saying that he would wish non-believers to take christianity on faith, but also to be content with an imprecise definition of the doctrines of that faith and the fact that there is a plethora of competing explanations, not about details, but regarding fundmanetal matters relating to salvation.

His statement that there is not any difference between catholic theology and protestant theology in regards to fundamental doctrines regarding salvation can't be correct because of the New Guinea question, and because he has shown in previous posts that he believes that someone who hears the gospel preached really can't honestly not believe it to be true.

Of course if you try to pin him down logically on a certain thing, you most likely will get the response that logic is merely "human reason", as if arithmetic were as well.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Now I'd like to know whether you agree with Peter666 that studying and knowing the non salvation nuances can be mean a more heavenly heaven?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible doesn't lay out a specific system for the believer's rewards in heaven. Our main goal is to understand the Lord's will (revealed, I'm not talking about mysticism), and through His grace to do it. That would include reading and understanding Scripture, though knowledge alone is not given very high praise. The knowledge is important, but the emphasis is on applying that knowledge, and the primary place is given to trusting and loving God, and loving others, which is manifested through action. Serious warnings are given to those who know the right thing to do and don't.

As to your question, I'm not sure studying and knowing doctrine alone is sufficient. Paul said "If I have all knowledge and have not love I am nothing". That's a pretty strong statement. He isn't criticizing knowledge, but he's warning against the idea that knowledge alone does any good.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

because of the New Guinea question


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what this is.

[ QUOTE ]

that someone who hears the gospel preached really can't honestly not believe it to be true.


[/ QUOTE ]

If Catholicism says otherwise then we do disagree. I was speaking of the way of salvation in general, that one is saved by faith in Christ and that "there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved". I thought Catholics believed this. I will admit I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine. I have no time to study it in detail, and I'm never really sure exactly where to find it. The Catholic church is huge and very old, there are many, many Catholic theologians, and I doubt you will try to make the case they all agree with each other on every doctrine. I really have no interest in saying this denomination or that denomination. I prefer to discuss specific doctrines.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course if you try to pin him down logically on a certain thing, you most likely will get the response that logic is merely "human reason", as if arithmetic were as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike you I don't place human reason above Scripture.

[BluffTHIS!]

Surely you haven't forgotten the New Guinea question: A man in New Guinea dies 1 day after Christ, thus absolutely never having had the opportunity of hearing the gospel. Is it at all likely from your interpretations of scripture that he could have been saved? And don't cop out with a "I trust such matters to God's providence" stuff. This is a question about your interpretation of the requirements for salvation.

And another key difference between catholic and most protestant theologies is over "faith alone" versus "faith plus works". Which is the reason Luther wished to exclude the Book of James from the canon of the NT.

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike you I don't place human reason above Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. But I do recognize that if there are multiple conflicting interpretations of scripture, then they all can not be right. And my human reason correctly allows me to know from scripture that God does want us to know on fundamental matters which is the correct interpretation, else He would not have said something and allowed it to come to pass that the correct meaning of what He said cannot be known in at least one denomination.

God gave us reason. Obviously it can be used correctly, i.e. logically, or it can be applied incorrectly. If you don't see that difference it is because you are not being intellectually honest with yourself so as not to have to deal with logical contradictions inherent in your protestant beliefs that would make it necessary to re-examine the specific christian views you hold.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And don't cop out with a "I trust such matters to God's providence" stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that trusting God's providence is a cop out we have another disagreement. Tell me what Scripture you rely on to decide this case.

[ QUOTE ]

And another key difference between catholic and most protestant theologies is over "faith alone" versus "faith plus works". Which is the reason Luther wished to exclude the Book of James from the canon of the NT.


[/ QUOTE ]

Luther misunderstood James. As far as I know, he's the only Protestant who didn't get it, and after all, he was the first and was most concerned about the works salvation prevalent at the time. This is an area that I think often comes down to a verbal difference, but it's often hard to tell what the official Catholic line is. The way a lot of Catholic writing is worded I can't say with certainty they claim salvation is by faith plus works. Instead they take the James line that legitimate faith always has works, which is the same as mainstream Protestant doctrine.

[ QUOTE ]

God gave us reason. Obviously it can be used correctly, i.e. logically, or it can be applied incorrectly. If you don't see that difference it is because you are not being intellectually honest with yourself so as not to have to deal with logical contradictions inherent in your protestant beliefs that would make it necessary to re-examine the specific christian views you hold.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic church has, at least since Aquinas (but notice not since Augustine), placed human reason at a higher level than Scripture. There is a fundamental divide between Reformed theology and Catholicism over the nature and effect of the fall. But the difference isn't over logic per se, but over man's fallen ability to use logic correctly. You never seem to get this point.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic church has, at least since Aquinas (but notice not since Augustine), placed human reason at a higher level than Scripture. There is a fundamental divide between Reformed theology and Catholicism over the nature and effect of the fall. But the difference isn't over logic per se, but over man's fallen ability to use logic correctly. You never seem to get this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it because it is not a logically valid one. And if you would read Aquinas, you would see that he in no way put reason above divine revelation, merely asserting that God's existence and many of His attributes can also be known partially from reason alone, and that reason can be appropriately applied to scripture to know God's true meaning in same.

And again you fail to understand logical implications in things you say. If your statement about "fallen man's" inability to correctly apply reason to theological matters is correct, then the same logically applies to his ability to apply it mathematics.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If your statement about "fallen man's" inability to correctly apply reason to theological matters is correct, then the same logically applies to his ability to apply it mathematics.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't say this. I say that Scripture is above man's reason. If there is a conflict between what we THINK is logical and what Scripture clearly teaches, Scripture wins. But logic does have a place in interpreting Scripture. Reformed theologians are often commended (and criticized) for their grasp of logic. Calvin was extremely logical in his theology. But he knew Who was Boss.

[BluffTHIS!]

So in other words scripture is purely mystical in nature. And God really doesn't want us to understand it right?

And in past threads I've started, you have used this same excuse to say scripture cannot be understood, and that all the competing theologies of various christian denominations each only possess partial truth. Even on differences regarding the fundamental question as to the requirements for salvation. And yet you have also maintainted that because of all this, you don't believe that God would thus provide that precisely one denomination, whichever it might be, possess the 100% correct interpretation of scripture and christian doctrine so it could faithfully be transmitted incorrupt to future generations. How can all this make sense to you?

And there is an answer as to how man's reason can correctly interpret scripture. The Holy Spirit. God doesn't provide food that you can't eat or fundamental doctrine that you can't understand.

[NotReady]

You totally twist my words and misrepresent me in almost every post you make. I give up.

[BluffTHIS!]

I have told you before that I have no wish to misrepresent your views. Nonetheless, virtually everything we say here has certain logical or illogical implications not only in itself, but also in regards to the set of beliefs that we hold. I merely try to bring out those implications. And it is often by taking something to its logical extreme, that a flaw in reasoning can be found.

And if there are certain logical contradictions in the set of beliefs that you hold, as I believe there are, then surely God expects you to reexamine the particular way in which you believe christianity. But if you think there are not, then surely you can find more precise ways of expressing yourself without being intentionally vague or begging the question.

Don't be a quitter.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And it is often by taking something to its logical extreme, that a flaw in reasoning can be found.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is taking logic to an extreme that pushes it past the Word of God. Your position is correct if logic is the absolute standard. As I keep on saying, and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying,and saying, -----

God is HIGHER than HUMAN logic.

[BluffTHIS!]

I agree 100%. But that can't be used as a copout explanation to explain holding a set of beliefs that has logical contradictions within itself. And you never really seem to grasp that logic is a branch of knowledge with strong mathematical foundations.

And the basis of all our disagreements is the correct interpretation of divine revelation. The true fruit of protestant theology is the lack of an authentic interpreter with the resulting scores of competing theologies. If God has given us the truth, then it has to be correctly understood to be of any spiritual use to men, or that word has been rendered void.

Only by having precisely one denomination being the holder of the complete and entirely correct theology of God, can that word be effectively transmitted to the future. And only by having a complete set of beliefs that is logically coherent and based on divine revelation, can we know we possess the truth.

Not understanding all the mystical implications of certain scriptural passages or the depths of certain matters that are "details", does not render theology immune from logical analysis.

God gave us the truth to understand and live by. And since it is possible for humans to have conflicting interpretations of divine things, He gave us an authentic interpreter, i.e. the Catholic Church, which has been here for nearly 2000 years (and I can easily prove exercises of papal authority and the existence of an insitutional church well before the protestant date of ca. 325 for the start of the catholic church).

And I will throw out the challenge to you that I have before. Read the writings of the early christians of the first generations after the apostles, and see if what they believed and how they worshipped in any way is similar to protestant belief and practice, and thus representative of the protestant claimed "primitive christian church" that supposedly existed before their date for the start of the "institutional church".

[Peter666]

"God is HIGHER than HUMAN logic."

Yes, but He also will never contradict human logic. If there is an actual logical flaw in the "word of God" it is not the Word of God, and should be cast away. Humans get the benefit of the doubt, not "God".

You are very good at pointing out the logical contradictions of non Christian views. However, your ecumenical view of Christian religions contains logical flaws that contradict the wonderfully intolerant Catholic religion.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but He also will never contradict human logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

"My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts".

"Who are you, O man, who answers back to God".

" The Book of Job".

[David Sklansky]

The debate between Peter666 and Not Ready, if it could only happen, will make all others pale by comparison.

[Peter666]

"My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts".

That means that God who is infinite doesn't need to spend time thinking about the things we are trying to figure out logically because He already knows them all. It says nothing of the process He has invented specifically for rational human beings to derive the truth.

"Who are you, O man, who answers back to God".

This quote applies only in cases where you can prove that God actually said it. How can you do that?

[hypermegachi]

i'm just replying to this cuz it's at the bottom of the list. you mentioned it difficult to find sites explaining the Catholic doctrine. here is a really really good one i found that led me to believe that if there is a God, that Catholicism would be the most likely correct interpretor of His word.

http://scripturecatholic.com/

i have yet to find a Protestant equivalent.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Only by having precisely one denomination being the holder of the complete and entirely correct theology of God, can that word be effectively transmitted to the future. And only by having a complete set of beliefs that is logically coherent and based on divine revelation, can we know we possess the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when that denomination has as its Authentic Interpreter someone like Pope John XII or Pope Benedict IX, then how is the infallible Word of God preserved? How can an institution's integrity remain unblemished when its very pillars are made of chalk?

And how can we credit this denomination with possessing the "complete and entirely correct theology of God" when its dogma is subject to change? What a great miracle The Pope performs! For where most would think that the truth is something to be discovered, he can create and destroy it by his will!

[ QUOTE ]
He gave us an authentic interpreter, i.e. the Catholic Church, which has been here for nearly 2000 years (and I can easily prove exercises of papal authority and the existence of an insitutional church well before the protestant date of ca. 325 for the start of the catholic church).

[/ QUOTE ]

I ask you to humor me and do so, if only because it is such an easy task.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but He also will never contradict human logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

"My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts".

"Who are you, O man, who answers back to God".

" The Book of Job".

[/ QUOTE ]

NR, do you not see the irony of you using those quotes? You infer by your comments that logical analysis is merely "human" when applied to theology. Yet you steadfastly refuse to admit that the reason there are logical contradictions in your protestant might just be because some of the components of that set of beliefs are in error, while those of another denomination are not. So you wrap your own specific brand of christian beliefs in the cloak of "God is greater than human wisdom". Perhaps though you really just don't have a good grounding in logic to understand what it is and is not. All knowledge and science comes from God, and works of God's hands are necessarily good. You might reflect on that and seek a greater education of His creation.

[BluffTHIS!]

Iron, I don't mean to be "Unkind", but I am not going to humor you. Other christians and myself share a common context in which to place such a debate. And I have posted in the recent past regarding catholic doctrines on papal infallibility and being the one true church, even giving you links to other threads where some of this was discussed. I don't wish to repeat myself.

Hiya BluffTHIS,

"All knowledge and science comes from God, and works of God's hands are necessarily good."

That, to my mind, is the source of all inconsistencies and contradiction plaguing theists. What's worse, it closes the door to any rational dialogue or discussion, besides obviously not fitting the observable reality.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That means that God who is infinite doesn't need to spend time thinking about the things we are trying to figure out logically because He already knows them all. It says nothing of the process He has invented specifically for rational human beings to derive the truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you read it in context I think you will find it means that man is sinful and God is not.

[ QUOTE ]

This quote applies only in cases where you can prove that God actually said it. How can you do that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this.

Do you think that man's logic is infallible?

[Peter666]

"If you read it in context I think you will find it means that man is sinful and God is not."

Yes, that is also true.

"Do you think that man's logic is infallible?"

Theoretically yes. It is what God gave rational beings to work with.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Theoretically yes. It is what God gave rational beings to work with.


[/ QUOTE ]

But not practically? Man can make logical errors?

[Peter666]

If the man suffers from a mental defect or retards his logical process through passions, drugs etc. then he can make logical errors, the same way he can make mistakes on a math test or not comprehend the questions.

But if he is of sober mind and applies the correct principles he will have perfect logic just like he will have a perfect math score on a test.

The principle of non-contradiction is proof of our perfect logic. This is a principle that cannot be disputed by the human or divine mind. Because the human mind recognizes this perfect principle, the logic it uses is perfect. God cannot contradict Himself either.

[hmkpoker]

Perfect logic exists in a vacuum.

For example, yes, we can take a simple zero-sum game (let's say something like tic-tac-toe) and deduce that a certain choice is unequivocally most correct. However, add a little more complexity into it (say, the opening move of a chess game) and it becomes more difficult to deduce a perfect move.

These are simple games with few variables and perfectly understood principles. We live in a world of seemingly infinite complexity, and we do not fully understand it. Logic breaks down, as we have neither the means nor the practical method to solve real problems perfectly. To analyze a real world (i.e., not in a vacuum, like our chess game) problem with logic, we must convert X into ~X, where ~X is something infinitely easier to understand, and able to be entered into our formula.

Logic is useful, but practically very infallible.

[Peter666]

I think the the principle of non-contradiction already proves that our logic can be perfect in a practical way.

I agree that there can be problems that are so extremely difficult that it would take an incredibly long time and a genius to deduce. Some are probably too long for many humans to deduce over a lengthy period of time, if ever (time may run out).

But these types of problems are not essential. They hold no practical relevance to the salvation of our souls, which is the only important matter, and where perfect logic, no matter how simple, is extremely important.

[BluffTHIS!]

Give it up Peter. NR doesn't really have a good grasp of logic and its mathematical foundations. And he doesn't want to either. Because then the emporer of his protestant theology would be seen clearly to be wearing no clothes.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

then he can make logical errors,


[/ QUOTE ]

Which was the point in the first place. So why did it take so long to get here?

[Peter666]

Because you seem to be arguing that all Cathlolic logical conclusions on doctrinal matters are not true, even though they are. Are they or are they not?

If you say yes, then we agree. If you say no, than we disagree and must root out which doctrines you think are false to find the logical error.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Because you seem to be arguing that all Cathlolic logical conclusions on doctrinal matters are not true


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never even hinted this. My point was about human logic. If I had anything in mind it was false atheistic philosophy.

[ QUOTE ]

If you say yes, then we agree. If you say no, than we disagree and must root out which doctrines you think are false to find the logical error.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe there are errors in Catholic doctrine but I have no desire to debate them. I don't think there's any issue that hasn't been thoroughly debated since Luther so anyone interested has more than enough material to study.

[Peter666]

Fair enough. We can conclude our discussion then. You will maintain that those outside of Christianity are illogical, and I will maintain that some of your views regarding Christianity are illogical.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You will maintain that those outside of Christianity are illogical, and I will maintain that some of your views regarding Christianity are illogical.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't maintian that atheists are illogical about everything.

I don't believe any of my views of Christianity are illogical.