Biblical Truth

[DKleinecke]

Before we can even discuss whether "The Scriptures" is "the True
Truth" we have to reach some agreement upon the questions of what "The
Scriptures" are and what truth is.

We might try defining "The Scriptures" as the combination of the
Leningrad Codex B19a (for the Old Testament) and Aland's 26th edition
of Novum Testamentum Graece (for the New Testament).

But I doubt that we can ever agree on a definition. Leaving aside such
mere eccentricities as the idea the The King James version is the true
word of God there some more substantial problems especially with the
New Testament. For example, the Aland text is not the precise text of
any authority earlier than Aland. And there are many people who, for
reasons they feel are adequate, would insist on the Majority text
(however they define that).

But let us suppose we could reach an agreement on the Hebrew and Greek
texts. We are not speakers of either languages nor are there any
speakers alive today. We would have to agree on how these texts were
understood - effectively how these texts are to be translated into
languages we use.

This is becoming harder and harder to imagine ever coming to pass.
Let's be practical - we are never going to agree on what the
scriptures are - much less on what they say. And still less upon the
truth value of what they say.

How then can we discuss the truth of these writings when we don't even
know what we are talking about?

[d***@aol.com]

On Apr 27, 5:58=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Before we can even discuss whether "The Scriptures" is "the True
> Truth" we have to reach some agreement upon the questions of what "The
> Scriptures" are and what truth is.
>
> We might try defining "The Scriptures" as the combination of the
> Leningrad Codex B19a (for the Old Testament) and Aland's 26th edition
> of Novum Testamentum Grace (for the New Testament).
>
> But I doubt that we can ever agree on a definition. Leaving aside such
> mere eccentricities as the idea the The King James version is the true
> word of God there some more substantial problems especially with the
> New Testament. For example, the Aland text is not the precise text of
> any authority earlier than Aland. And there are many people who, for
> reasons they feel are adequate, would insist on the Majority text
> (however they define that).
>
> But let us suppose we could reach an agreement on the Hebrew and Greek
> texts. We are not speakers of either languages nor are there any
> speakers alive today. We would have to agree on how these texts were
> understood - effectively how these texts are to be translated into
> languages we use.
>
> This is becoming harder and harder to imagine ever coming to pass.
> Let's be practical - we are never going to agree on what the
> scriptures are - much less on what they say. And still less upon the
> truth value of what they say.
>
> How then can we discuss the truth of these writings when we don't even
> know what we are talking about?


I would be curious to know just what it is that you believe. Paul,
and Christ too, pointed out the necessity for the mediation of the
Holy Spirit in understanding the reality of what had occurred with the
incarnation of Jesus and what God has for us. I would find it very
hard to accept anything in Christianity without His presence. He is
more real to me than anything that is filtered through the senses that
provide my contact with God's creation. I am just puzzled that you
don't seem to have His affirmation of the basic truth of the New
Testament, the dispensation of Grace. I suppose you are right, we will
never agree, though, of course, I pray everyone could find the peace
and hope I have found, I fear it will never be true.

Daryl

[DKleinecke]

On Apr 28, 7:39 pm, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:

> I would be curious to know just what it is that you believe.

You ask a personal question I will give you a personal answer. I am
speaking only for myself.

Perhaps you can understand that I accept the Holy Spirit. As a modal
monarchist I take the name "Holy Spirit" to be the name of God as we
encounter God in our daily life. In my view of things the Holy Spirit
possesses an authority the old books do not have. I believe the old
books do have reasonably accurate accounts of other people's
encounters with God told as best they could tell them.

But encounter with God is too transcendental to put into words. The
old words are interesting - but there are many more old words not in
the bible that are equally interesting.

One reason why one might turn to the old books is to supplement the
information one has gotten from communion with God. In my experience
God is not forthcoming with information about details of the everyday
world. In one famous word God is Love. The only moral imperative is
not to ever lose contact with God. If you work at this for a
relatively short time and pay attention to ALL the teaching about
morality and ethics you can learn how to move in the world and never
lose contact with God.

As Hillel said - everything else is commentary.

[d***@aol.com]

On May 4, 6:13=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 7:39 pm, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I would be curious to know just what it is that you believe.
>
> You ask a personal question I will give you a personal answer. I am
> speaking only for myself.
>
> Perhaps you can understand that I accept the Holy Spirit. As a modal
> monarchist I take the name "Holy Spirit" to be the name of God as we
> encounter God in our daily life. In my view of things the Holy Spirit
> possesses an authority the old books do not have. I believe the old
> books do have reasonably accurate accounts of other people's
> encounters with God told as best they could tell them.
>
> But encounter with God is too transcendental to put into words. The
> old words are interesting - but there are many more old words not in
> the bible that are equally interesting.
>
> One reason why one might turn to the old books is to supplement the
> information one has gotten from communion with God. In my experience
> God is not forthcoming with information about details of the everyday
> world. In one famous word God is Love. The only moral imperative is
> not to ever lose contact with God. If you work at this for a
> relatively short time and pay attention to ALL the teaching about
> morality and ethics you can learn how to move in the world and never
> lose contact with God.
>
> As Hillel said - everything else is commentary.

It is curious how we can have such a parallel understanding of the
action of God in our lives, of His presence and guidance and yet have
such divergent views about Jesus. I suppose that must come from our
experiences. I have seen the hand of God actually drawing a loved one
to Christ, postponing and diverting death until that union was
accomplished and then tying up all the leftover loose ends and calling
them home. As someone fond of mathematics you must appreciate there
comes a point where coincidence simply becomes absurd. (we'll have to
chat about math sometime, imo the existance of God is logically prior
to any epistomology, in fact even necessary for the existance of
reason. but we'll let that go for now.) I am not so sure that God is
so much about morality and ethics except that He loves us and wants us
to be as happy as possible, all of us of course, so I sort of think
you have the cart before the horse, be close to God, experience that
love, return it because we had it even when we were lost, and the
morality and ethics will naturally follow.


Daryl

[DKleinecke]

On May 6, 6:24 pm, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 6:13=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is curious how we can have such a parallel understanding of the
> action of God in our lives, of His presence and guidance and yet have
> such divergent views about Jesus.

I fear you don't know what modal monarchism means. This is the form of
Unitarianism that holds that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are just three
different names for the same entity. Father is the name we use when we
think about creation. Son is the name we use when we think about
whatever it was that happened in Judea very nearly two thousand years
ago. I use the name Christ for godly aspects of the discussion and
Jesus for the earthly one so, at the very least, I would substitute
Christ for Jesus. Finally Holy Spirit is name I believe one should use
for the on-going experience of god.

But, from my point-of-view, from the point-of-view of modal monarchism
these are just five names applied to one and the same entity.

My experience of god indicates that there is nothing else in god space
(meaning everywhere except in physical reality). There are no angels
and no devils - nothing but transcendent god.

My experience of god has convinced me that god does not intervene in
physical reality - the contact between man and god is in what you
might call psychic space. God offers love, but god does not change
what god has fore-ordained (a badly put metaphor, of course, because,
god is not in time at all).

If you have other experiences of god I cannot object. There is no very
effective way to communicate my experiences to you or yours to me and,
of course, neither of us can hope to convince the other of anything on
the basis of personal experiences we cannot communicate.

[d***@aol.com]

On May 7, 6:44=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 6:24 pm, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 6:13=3DA0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> My experience of god has convinced me that god does not intervene in
> physical reality - the contact between man and god is in what you
> might call psychic space. God offers love, but god does not change
> what god has fore-ordained (a badly put metaphor, of course, because,
> god is not in time at all).
>
> If you have other experiences of god I cannot object. There is no very
> effective way to communicate my experiences to you or yours to me and,
> of course, neither of us can hope to convince the other of anything on
> the basis of personal experiences we cannot communicate.

Very curious, when I was an atheist I could not conceive how such a
thing as God might exist, I couldn't form any kind of ideation that
would correspond to God nor picture how He could relate to reality.
Amazingly, now I see His hand everywhere I turn. Not intervene in
reality? He is it's master, and intervention would be the most natural
thing imaginable. Prayer does indeed change things, but because He
does not exist in time, it looks as if that was what was going to
happen anyway.
As to the other beings not occupying "god space;" it sounds like
Screwtape is doing a smash up job.

Daryl

[DKleinecke]

On May 12, 7:31 pm, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:

> As to the other beings not occupying "god space;" it sounds like
> Screwtape is doing a smash up job.

In terms that will probably offend you, but are wise none the less -
there is no god but Allah.

To have a host of little devils around to blame things on is to be a
modern Manichean. You do believe in one god, don't you? In a universe
with one god there is no room for any devils. Angels, of course, are
simply glimpses of god.

And anyway no one has ever found any evidence for demons. Just
stories.

I am delighted that you understand how "divine providence" is an
illusion.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 02:25:10 GMT, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 12, 7:31 pm, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> As to the other beings not occupying "god space;" it sounds like
>> Screwtape is doing a smash up job.
>
>In terms that will probably offend you, but are wise none the less -
>there is no god but Allah.

Indeed, but for Christians Allah is Father Son and Holy Spirit.

>To have a host of little devils around to blame things on is to be a
>modern Manichean. You do believe in one god, don't you? In a universe
>with one god there is no room for any devils. Angels, of course, are
>simply glimpses of god.

Not at all.

Both angels and demons are creatures. God is uncreated.


--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

[George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus]

On May 14, 9:42 pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 02:25:10 GMT, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 12, 7:31 pm, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> As to the other beings not occupying "god space;" it sounds like
> >> Screwtape is doing a smash up job.
>
> >In terms that will probably offend you, but are wise none the less -
> >there is no god but Allah.
>
> Indeed, but for Christians Allah is Father Son and Holy Spirit.
>
> >To have a host of little devils around to blame things on is to be a
> >modern Manichean. You do believe in one god, don't you? In a universe
> >with one god there is no room for any devils. Angels, of course, are
> >simply glimpses of god.
>
> Not at all.
>
> Both angels and demons are creatures. God is uncreated.

Off the subject, but I did not want to miss the opportunity to ask one
who knew about demons:

Do demons ever get sick? If a demon is sick, does it ever get well?
Do demons sin? If they do sin will God forgive them?

--4B13A341379.1242617515/Main.local--

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 18 May 2009 04:30:50 GMT, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene
carolina triungus <***@bayou.com> wrote:

>Do demons ever get sick? If a demon is sick, does it ever get well?
>Do demons sin? If they do sin will God forgive them?

In Christian theology, demons are angels that sinned.


--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

[George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus]

On May 18, 8:18 pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 04:30:50 GMT, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene
>
> carolina triungus <***@bayou.com> wrote:
> >Do demons ever get sick? If a demon is sick, does it ever get well?
> >Do demons sin? If they do sin will God forgive them?
>
> In Christian theology, demons are angels that sinned.

Does the Christian theology, to which you refer, differentiate between
demons and unclean spirits?

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 20 May 2009 02:12:07 GMT, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene
carolina triungus <***@bayou.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 8:18 pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 May 2009 04:30:50 GMT, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene
>>
>> carolina triungus <***@bayou.com> wrote:
>> >Do demons ever get sick? If a demon is sick, does it ever get well?
>> >Do demons sin? If they do sin will God forgive them?
>>
>> In Christian theology, demons are angels that sinned.
>
>Does the Christian theology, to which you refer, differentiate between
>demons and unclean spirits?

I'd have to check on that, but I suspect they are two ways of referring to the
same thing.

Terminology changes.

Demons (Greek daemones) were originally inferior deities that swanned aound in
the lower atmosphere, and were not necessarily evil. In later Christian
theology the term came to be reserved for fallen angels who were seen as
strictly and intrinsically evil, led by the chief of them, known as the devil
(Greek) or the satan (Hebrew). The KJV mistranslates "daemones" as "devils",
as strictly speaking there is one devil (in that sense). "Devil" or "satan" is
an office, and refers to a court official, a public prosecutor who brings
accusations in a court of law, and the characteristic of the devil is that he
makes accusations -- against Job (see Job chapters 1 & 2, against Joshua the
High Priest (Zechariah 3), and against all God's people (Rev 12:9-10).


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[l***@hotmail.com]

On May 20, 9:06=A0pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terminology changes.
>
> Demons (Greek daemones) were originally inferior deities that swanned aou=
nd in
> the lower atmosphere, and were not necessarily evil. In later Christian
> theology the term came to be reserved for fallen angels who were seen as
> strictly and intrinsically evil, led by the chief of them, known as the d=
evil
> (Greek) or the satan (Hebrew). The KJV mistranslates "daemones" as "devil=
s",
> as strictly speaking there is one devil (in that sense). "Devil" or "sata=
n" is
> an office, and refers to a court official, a public prosecutor who brings
> accusations in a court of law, and the characteristic of the devil is tha=
t he
> makes accusations -- against Job (see Job chapters 1 & 2, against Joshua =
the
> High Priest (Zechariah 3), and against all God's people (Rev 12:9-10).
>
Read Fred's book. It's his class notes. I had his class which that
semester
was right after his counseling sessions. There are now four clinics in
the
US which counsel Christians who have trouble in this area.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?tn=3Dangels+evil+elect&x=3D79=
&y=3D10

Buy the book and read it. It is all biblical referenced. If you want
more there is Ungers, "Biblical Demonology," and of course, a whole
slew of journal notations by Kurt Kock. This is not fairy tales and
certainly nothing to be fooled around with. Demonology is one
ministry that if you are not extrude into it, you stay out of it.

Luke Skywalker, "I'm not scared of the dark side of the force."
Yoda, "You will be! You will be."

2 Pet 2:10; Jude 8-10

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 22 May 2009 01:48:38 GMT, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

>On May 20, 9:06=A0pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Terminology changes.

>Read Fred's book. It's his class notes. I had his class which that
>semester
>was right after his counseling sessions. There are now four clinics in
>the
>US which counsel Christians who have trouble in this area.

Who's Fred?

And why should I buy his book rather than Charlie's?

http://www.amazon.com/Demons-Devil-Charles-Stewart/dp/0691028486




--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

[l***@hotmail.com]

On May 25, 7:43=A0pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 01:48:38 GMT, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On May 20, 9:06=3DA0pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Terminology changes.
> >Read Fred's book. =A0It's his class notes. =A0I had his class which that
> >semester
> >was right after his counseling sessions. There are now four clinics in
> >the
> >US which counsel Christians who have trouble in this area.
>
> Who's Fred?
>
> And why should I buy his book rather than Charlie's?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Demons-Devil-Charles-Stewart/dp/0691028486
>
If you had followed my link, you'd know that it was
Fred Dickason.

Why would I read something of Dickason vs. Stewart's?
>From what I gathered of Stewart's account, its all
second hand and theoretical. Dickason teaches
from personal, first hand, experience. There is also
his book titled, "Demon Possession and the Christ-
ian." Many do not believe that a regenerated
believer can also be possessed/inhabited by a
demon(s). This is a theological negation, however,
not an experiential one. I also mentioned Kurt
Kock and Unger's "Biblical Demonology." Kock
is world reknown for his ministry in deliverance
from demon harassment, oppression, and
possession. I think his book, Christian Counseling
and Occultism is one of the most important,
though dated, books on the subject available to
the general reader.

But again, this is not a ministry for any but
the one who is called to it. I'm not saying one
shouldn't be studied in it, but one very definitely
needs to cautious not to become fascinated
with it. Our calling is to know God, not be
fascinated with doctrines of demons or hidden
knowledge such as those of Gen 6.

I know Dickason therefore I can personally
recommend him and his book which teaches
angelology from a strictly exegetical perspective.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 28 May 2009 01:11:37 GMT, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

>On May 25, 7:43=A0pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Who's Fred?
>>
>> And why should I buy his book rather than Charlie's?
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Demons-Devil-Charles-Stewart/dp/0691028486
>>
>If you had followed my link, you'd know that it was
>Fred Dickason.

I don't follow links unless I have some idea of what I'll find there.

http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/peeves.htm


--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

[news]

On Tue, 19 May 2009, Steve Hayes wrote:

>
> In Christian theology, demons are angels that sinned.
>
>
B - In some Christian theology. Demons..to me ...are just thought forms
that we all create and Angels can never sin.

Bren

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 20 May 2009 02:12:07 GMT, news <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 May 2009, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>> In Christian theology, demons are angels that sinned.
>>
>>
>B - In some Christian theology. Demons..to me ...are just thought forms
>that we all create and Angels can never sin.

You mean like egregores?

See:

http://methodius.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-egregores-and-angels.html


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[l***@hotmail.com]

On May 14, 9:42=A0pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed, but for Christians Allah is Father Son and Holy Spirit.
>
Allah is not YHVH. Perhaps you should investigate the history of the
term, Allah.

---

[Please look at the context of the original posting. Steve was responding
to someone else's use of the term. It's not clear to me that you
disagree. --clh]

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Apr 27, 7:58=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Before we can even discuss whether "The Scriptures" is "the True
> Truth" we have to reach some agreement upon the questions of what "The
> Scriptures" are and what truth is.
>
This is not where to start you questioning. You should start with
first
a review of epistemological apologetics followed by a theological
review of the doctrine of incomprehensibility. Both of these have
helped
my understanding of the situation beyond measure.

[DKleinecke]

On Apr 29, 5:08 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:58=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:> Before we can even discuss whether "The Scriptures" is "the True
> > Truth" we have to reach some agreement upon the questions of what "The
> > Scriptures" are and what truth is.
>
> This is not where to start you questioning. You should start with
> first
> a review of epistemological apologetics followed by a theological
> review of the doctrine of incomprehensibility. Both of these have
> helped
> my understanding of the situation beyond measure.

I rather strongly disagree. Of course I am reflecting the fact that I
was trained as a mathematician and my epistemology is the epistemology
of a mathematician. This margin is too small for me the explain much
of that in. Briefly a mathematician is inclined to allow existence to
anything you can define in a non-contradictary way and to judge
everything else as non-existent. Once something is defined what is
known about is is what can be deduced by logic from the definition.

Epistemological apologetics seems to me to be a circular concept. You
know about presuppositional theology (as you mentioned in the thread
about Cornelius van Til). The very concept of an epistemological
apologetics seems to require the presupposition that the object of the
theology exists. What is needed is place to stand on outside of
theology and a long enough lever (to misquote Archimedes).

When I say I find the Doctrine of Incomprehensibity incomprehensible I
am not just making a joke. It sounds like pure nonsense to me.
Actually the Doctrine in its purest form is not nonsense - but it is
platitude - God is incomprehensible to mankind. Everybody appears to
accept that. But I cannot see how any conclusion can be made from the
Doctrine. It is when people start adding corollaries that the nonsense
starts.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On May 4, 8:13=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 5:08 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> When I say I find the Doctrine of Incomprehensibity incomprehensible I
> am not just making a joke. It sounds like pure nonsense to me.
> Actually the Doctrine in its purest form is not nonsense - but it is
> platitude - God is incomprehensible to mankind.
>
This is not exactly true, is it? Reduced to purely mathematical
terms, the infinite can never be measured. In ethical bounds, a
transcendental ethic can never be produced. At best, in either
case, all man can produce is a statistical average. Even the
basic 2+2=3D4 cannot be stated in pure absolute terms. For to
do so, we our selves would have to be infinite to _know_ that in
every possible instance, the equation is true. But that is some-
thing which is beyond us.

Theologically, the incomprehensibility of God merely means that
He is beyond our reason, our logic, our sensibilities. He must
reveal Himself if we are to truly know Him as He is. When such
revelation is afford, it is true but obviously not exhaustive. Man
is ever the reconstructionist. Man is ever the dependent creature.
Man is never the final arbitrator as to what is true and what is not.
This is the foundation of biblical theology. Man must accept his
place in the universe as opposed to the natural inclination where he
assumes the napoleonic stance even as Lucifier did as recorded
in Isa 14, Eze 28.

Though I don't know if it was formal, I do believe that this was
the true basis for the Reformer's cry, "sola scriptura!"

Now this calls to my mind an interesting parallel as I interpret
what you are advocating to be essentially empiricism. It, for
me, reminds me much of the RC encyclical "Providentissimus
Deus," As is the case made more plainly today, the evolutionary
paradigm plays a major role in RC critical investigation. As I
understand the history of this, it seeks to align or rather assign
equal authority to both special and natural revelation. That is,
there is no conflict between the natural sciences and the
theological speculations. Each much respect the limits of
each. Though harmonious propositionally, pragmatically the
paradigm of "God & mammon" or two equal authorities, simply
does not work. Any two parent family knows this as children are
so "gifted" at playing one authority against the other.

In addition to this, biblical exegetes who employ or take
advantage of secular scientific and historical studies, were
counseled by the RC authorities not to forget the over-
arching analogia fidei (analogy of faith). When it came to
biblical exegesis, nothing, but nothing would counter the
church subscribed order and rule. In truth, this was not
Providentissimus Deus but Providentissimus Magistratum.
It's a shell game. And this is how I view what you are
attempting to advocate.

Faith admits and follows through on the notitia, accentia
and feducia of biblical reality -man was created derivative
and never is the ultimate source of any truth. This is
true of regenerative man and certainly true of non-regen-
erative man. Man is simply not emancipated from his
created/designed, necessary "abode." Autonomous man
is a sad delusion. Man is simply and unqualifiedly sub-
ordinate to the Scriptures, they being nothing less that
the voice of God in to a world of sin and lostness.

Schaeffer's idiom was "If you have no absolute by
which judge society by, then society is absolute." The
apple doesn't fall far from the tree for his mentor and
professor, Van Til wrote, "If the Christian consciousness
has no absolute standard by which to judge itself, it
is soon lost in the ocean of relativity, in which all the
standards of non-Christian ethics swim." ("More than
that, if the Christian consciousness does not completely
submit itself to the Scriptures it is already pagan in
principle. All that does not spring from obedience to
God is sin." Christian Theistic Ethics. p 25)
>
> Everybody appears to
> accept that. But I cannot see how any conclusion can be made from the
> Doctrine. It is when people start adding corollaries that the nonsense
> starts.
>
Man is by definition analogical. Everything fabricated by
him is what he first received to rework. Even this discussion
operates under the constructs of analogy. "Come let us
reason together" is a call to the consciousness of one party
to the other in seeking to persuade. But consciousness is
not the final court of appeal or the "easy solution" (again
quoting Van Til).

2+2=3D4 is only absolute when we have an infinite reference
point to declare it such, otherwise it can never be raised
beyond a mere statistical probability. This is why I reject
the evolutionary model. I must accept God from the outset
as being truthful revelational. "He is not a God of confusion
is He? May it never be!"

[DKleinecke]

On May 7, 6:44 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

> On May 4, 8:13=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 29, 5:08 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > When I say I find the Doctrine of Incomprehensibity incomprehensible I
> > am not just making a joke. It sounds like pure nonsense to me.
> > Actually the Doctrine in its purest form is not nonsense - but it is
> > platitude - God is incomprehensible to mankind.
>
> This is not exactly true, is it? Reduced to purely mathematical
> terms, the infinite can never be measured. In ethical bounds, a
> transcendental ethic can never be produced. At best, in either
> case, all man can produce is a statistical average. Even the
> basic 2+2=3D4 cannot be stated in pure absolute terms.

In so far as anything can be true - YES. God is incomprehensible to
mankind.

I suggest you do not attempt to use mathematics. It is clear to me you
have no comprehension of what mathematical terms mean. Infinite
numbers can be precisely defined (and there are an infinite number of
different infinities). 2+2=4 is frequently not true - 2+2=0 and 2+2=1
in some places and other possibilities remain. And, in mathematical
terms "pure absolute terms" is pure absolute nonsense.

> Theologically, the incomprehensibility of God merely means that
> He is beyond our reason, our logic, our sensibilities. He must
> reveal Himself if we are to truly know Him as He is.

This is the nonsense to which I was referring. If god is truly "beyond
our reason, our logic and our sensibilities" then "reveal" is
meaningless and there no possibility of us knowing god even a tiny bit
much less as god truly is.

I believe that god does reveal god's self a tiny bit. Just the
minimum. God reveals that god exists. Everything else about god
remains incomprehensible.

It is easy to obtain assurance that god exists if you pull your nose
out of the old books and look inside your soul. Prayer and/or
meditation, if you are not far gone in sin, will quickly bring about
an encounter with god.

As I said once before, quoting Hillel, all the rest is commentary.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On May 12, 9:31=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 6:44 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>

>
> I suggest you do not attempt to use mathematics. It is clear to me you
> have no comprehension of what mathematical terms mean. Infinite
> numbers can be precisely defined (and there are an infinite number of
> different infinities). 2+2=3D4 is frequently not true - 2+2=3D0 and 2+2=
=3D1
> in some places and other possibilities remain. And, in mathematical
> terms "pure absolute terms" is pure absolute nonsense.
>
No, one presumes that, say for instance, if black holes exists, or
some
such phenomena, that 2+2=3D4 will equally be true. The speed of light
was once thought of as a constant until gravitational fields were
recognized as causing an effect.

But my point is more a philosophical one which extends into all
other fields, that being, that for anyone to make an absolute
statement,
he/she would have to know absolutely every instance and circumstance,
both real or possible to unequivocally state that 2+2=3D4 absolutely.
This is why only God can make absolute statements.
>
> > Theologically, the incomprehensibility of God merely means that
> > He is beyond our reason, our logic, our sensibilities. =A0He must
> > reveal Himself if we are to truly know Him as He is.
>
> This is the nonsense to which I was referring. If god is truly "beyond
> our reason, our logic and our sensibilities" then "reveal" is
> meaningless and there no possibility of us knowing god even a tiny bit
> much less as god truly is.
>
God is Creator. He created us in His image. He created us in such
a fashion that we can receive and comprehend what He chooses to
disclose. I see you play the same game that Francis Crick played
when he used small "n" when using the term "nature." In his case,
it was interesting to not that by the end of the paper, he capitalized
it!

The doctrine of incomprehensibility does not detract from knowing
truth. We can know God truly but never exhaustively. My dog
knows what I mean which I give this or that command, but that
doesn't equate to say he knows the how's, why's and wherefore's
of each and ever instance. A bad illustration perhaps, but we
to can know something true about God without having to know it
exhaustively. Again, even elementary epistemology teaches
this.
>
> I believe that god does reveal god's self a tiny bit. Just the
> minimum. God reveals that god exists. Everything else about god
> remains incomprehensible.
>
Rom 1:20. Though general revelation cannot produce a forced
consent, it does provide ample witness to condemn. Special
revelation, on the other hand, grants us not only external truth,
but an internal witness to the truth, i.e. via the Spirit. Man was
made responsible which necessarily brings with it, accountability.

2 Tim 2:14-15 Paul solemnly charges Timothy in the presence of
God, to make a maximum effort to know the truth in order not to
fall short of accommodation when brought before the Lord. The
presumption is that Truth is quiet knowable though, obviously,
never exhaustively known.
>
> It is easy to obtain assurance that god exists if you pull your nose
> out of the old books and look inside your soul. Prayer and/or
> meditation, if you are not far gone in sin, will quickly bring about
> an encounter with god.
>
Mysticism? Existential experience produces true truth? This
is the great error of most of neo-charsimatics of TV fame. This
is exactly why sola scriptura is so overwhelmingly important.
In fact, apart from the scriptures, all we have are our own
relativistic interpretations/opinions -Van Til's diggy set adrift
in the vast ocean of relativism.
>
> As I said once before, quoting Hillel, all the rest is commentary.
>
You seemingly fail in giving consideration to the distinctives
of normal vs descriptive. As great as Hillel or even greater still,
Augustine was/were, they were both merely descriptive. Only
Paul and the other canonical writers were normative in their
presentation. This too is elementary.

Heb 1:1-2