God's Truth
New member
Jesus tells us how we are given understanding!
Understanding is not given the way you say.
What does God's Holy Law Demand?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Jesus tells us how we are given understanding!
Understanding is not given the way you say.
God's Truth
New member
Paul was the apostle to the Jews too, but Jesus sent him far away to the Gentiles because the Jews did not trust Paul. The Jews thought Paul was just trying to trick them to say they believe in Jesus so that he could throw them in prison.
Acts 22
12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him. 14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ 17 “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’ 19 “ ‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. 20 And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’ 21 “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ”
Acts 22
12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him. 14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ 17 “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’ 19 “ ‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. 20 And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’ 21 “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ”
I've the bible several times. What are you talking about now?
Nope, God said so because it is so, not the other way around. Effects do not precede their own cause. What God says is right (morally and otherwise) because God is good. If it is the other way around then it is meaningless to say that God is good. In fact, you have no way of knowing whether God is in fact good if its the other way around. An issue Aristotle brought up 2300 years ago and that you could have no answer for because you actually do believe that good is defined by God's fiat.
They all are Christian philosophy.
If you knew anything at all you'd know that you just contradicted yourself.
Every question about God is philosophical in nature.
Well that's obviously false. There's more too it than that. The PROOF of that is Christian television. All anyone ever does on Christian TV is quote the bible and not 1% of it leads to a proper theology proper, soteriology, hamartiology or any other aspect of the Christian faith. They barely get the fact that Jesus is God right and several of them don't even get that far, all the while quoting the bible till that pass out.
No kidding.
Of course! No one has suggested otherwise.
Are you a Catholic?
No, right?
You want to know why you aren't a Catholic? Do you know why Luther was right and all the Catholics were wrong?
"Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." - Martin Luther
Reason is the reason! And I'm not talking about the driveling stupidity that passes for reason in today's universities where so called scientists use what they think is reason and logic to come up with slobber mouthed, groaning profundities such as the theory of evolution and the big bang. That isn't reason, that's religious dogma masquerading as reason. It is exactly the sort of "philosophy" that Paul warns us not to allow ourselves to be deceived by. It isn't real reason, its a lie. Like all things evil it is a perturbation of the good, a twisted version of the real thing. Real reason is about the truth, its about reality. Rational thought is nothing more than a thinking mind conforming itself to the limits of reality.
If reason is rejected, anything goes, with or without the bible.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. I'm out of time for this evening and will likely not be able to post anything more tonight. I'll leave you with a link to another thread I started a long time ago. I suggest you read the opening post before making any judgments about what I've said in this post. You might just learn something cool about God and His Logos. Feel free to respond either here or on the other thread or both.
Is God Moral?
What are you even talking about?
I am not debate whether Paul was sent to the Gentiles, that would be stupid. Of course he was sent to the gentiles. The question is WHY was he even in the picture at all? Why not send one or all of the Twelve? Was that not their 'Great Commission'?
You really need to try to keep your eye on the ball here!
I am now thinking about Bible study, Theology, science, and philosophy. They are all different. Theology answers questions about God. Science involves study of God's creation. Bible study is the study of God's word. Philosophy is different from all of these, though science can be said to be backed by philosophical principles, or to have a philosophy behind it. Another thought is science as discovery of the natural world, or the scientific methodology or scientific method. I am saying this about science to speak of philosophy as different. Theology and philosophy are also different, with philosophy attempting to ask and answer many questions about the world in which we live. We still have the verse about not being caught up in philosophy in its emptiness. That is, all of our questions are answered in Jesus Christ. Bible study is simply different from Theology or thoughts about God because we know the Bible to be God's word and we study it to learn about God, Jesus, the gospel and salvation, and how to live the Christian life. Theology, whether Bibliology (one book at a time) or Systematic Theology (which involves the study of different topics or subjects, but with scriptures from throughout the Bible) involves Bible study but can involve our thoughts about God.
Your thread title shows where you are coming from in having and trying to answer your question, but I would never want to doubt that God is moral.
God's Truth
New member
I have already explained to you that the scriptures say Paul was saved and made an apostle to show that even the worst of sinners can be forgiven.
Salvation and the forgiveness of sins has been provided for all who want to be saved.
"Whosoever that shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13.
After one is saved God gives them his Holy Spirit as their teacher and guide. Does the Holy Spirit make them holy? Of course not, they only have the first fruits or the down payment of the spirit, Romans 8:23. Spiritually, they are perfect and complete in Christ, Colossians 2:10. Physically, they are still sinners just like the apostle Paul, Romans 7:13-25.
The title of this thread is... "WHAT DOES GOD"S HOLY LAW DEMAND?" it demands perfection which none of us have to offer.
"Whosoever that shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13.
After one is saved God gives them his Holy Spirit as their teacher and guide. Does the Holy Spirit make them holy? Of course not, they only have the first fruits or the down payment of the spirit, Romans 8:23. Spiritually, they are perfect and complete in Christ, Colossians 2:10. Physically, they are still sinners just like the apostle Paul, Romans 7:13-25.
The title of this thread is... "WHAT DOES GOD"S HOLY LAW DEMAND?" it demands perfection which none of us have to offer.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus saves those he chooses to save and he chooses those who obey him.
Acts 5:32, Acts 15:8
Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord better be obeying:
Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
That happens when one is saved.
The Holy Spirit washes you of the sins you repent of doing.
The Holy Spirit makes us holy by cleansing us of our sins, we now have a new life and to keep obeying. If we sin, we are to repent and we can find forgiveness of our sins from Jesus who lives to intercede for us, see Hebrews 7:12.
You blasphemy Paul when you say he still lived his life doing the worst sins!
You only listen to Paul, Paul says to live up to the fact that one is made holy and perfect.
Philippians 3:16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
Ephesians 4:1 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.
Colossians 1:10
so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God,
Colossians 2:6
So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him,
1 Thessalonians 2:12
encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
1 Thessalonians 4:1
As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more.
King James Bible
2 Thessalonians 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
2 Thessalonians 1:5 It is a clear evidence of God’s righteous judgment that you will be counted worthy of God’s kingdom, for which you also are suffering,
ONE of your basic problems is, you blend the Kingdom message to the House of Israel with the Grace message to the Gentiles. You cannot do that and come to a coherent conclusion. There are two different distinct messages being taught. Paul was called by the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ to be the Apostle to the Gentiles and preach the Grace Gospel. Whereas Christ, Peter,and the other Disciples preached the Kingdom message to the Jews. By combining these two messages together, you end up with confusion and assorted contradictions.
Paul preaches "Salvation by faith alone while Peter and the Disciples preach "Salvation through faith and works." An example of this is found in James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." Paul preaches in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Do you see the obvious contradiction?
How do you know this?
I'm not suggesting that it isn't, I agree that the bible is God's word so don't freak out, just answer the question. HOW DO YOU KNOW?
The thread title was designed to garner attention and to pique interest enough to get people to click the link. I do not and never have doubted that God is moral. It is your position that implies that He is not, which is the entire point of that thread and of my entire exchange with you. YOUR doctrine does imply that God is not moral, Jacob. Whether you ever want to allow such a statement to come explicitly out of your mouth or even to be formed between your ears doesn't change the fact that words mean things and that ideas have consequences and just because you make every attempt to base your doctrine on the bible doesn't mean you do it right every time or that you cannot make enormously important errors. A point I've made now at at least half a dozen times now without reply from you, by the way. You just keep right on going with you mindless "I read the bible...", "avoid philosophy..." babbling as though repeating yourself and ignoring what I say helps. Well I'm sure it helps you feel better but it doesn't change the facts of reality. Your doctrine is false in several areas, not the least of which is that you think right and wrong are arbitrarily determined by God. That not only implies that morality doesn't apply to God but it implies that God is unjust because you cannot be both arbitrary and just, they are opposite things.
These are all thoughts concerning an area of Christian philosophy known as Theology Proper. It is our theology of God. It presumes the existence of God and answers questions like: Who is God: What is God like and why? It is the foundation of all things theological - all things. If it is done correctly, it is both informed by the bible while at the same time it provides boundaries for further bible study and interpretation. Forming a theology proper is a necessary (i.e. logically necessary) first step in any proper systematic theology.
Just to give you a taste of the difference your theology proper makes, take a look at two quite different theologies proper, (the proponents of which both insist are PURELY biblical in nature, by the way).
Those who hold to the idea that God predestines everything (i.e. Calvinist and other Augustinian doctrines) hold (by implication or outright) the follow attributes of God to be preeminent...
God is:Immutable, Impassible, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent
These attributes, you'll notice, are mostly quantitative in nature. They're about how much power God has, how much knowledge He has and how big God is, how much God is moved/changed (emotionally or otherwise), etc.
On the other hand if you reject predestination its because your theology proper is quite different. Those who believe in free will do so because they believe the following...
God is: Living, Personal, Relational, Loving and Righteous
Notice that these attributes are NOT quantitative but are rather qualitative in nature.
You might be thinking, "Well, I don't pick and choose, I believe that God is all of those things." - No you don't! You can't! You are forced to choose, whether you want to or not. You cannot avoid it and you do choose and have chosen, whether you realize it or not.
There are other threads that have gone into great detail establishing that claim and so I'm not going to make any attempt to do so here. I doubt that you would read it if I did anyway but regardless, what I've posted is sufficient to make my point here which is simply this...
Reading the bible is not sufficient by itself. First and foremost it isn't even possible to do. You do have presuppositions that you bring to the reading whether you've ever thought them through or even realize that they exist. It is critical that you not simply read but that you understand what you are reading, which involves a very great deal more than just the words on the page. You MUST govern your mind! If rational thought goes out the window then literally anything goes! If contradictions are permitted then how can you declare any theological truth claim either true or false? If words can mean anything you want them to mean then which wacko doctrine is impossible to construct? If reason is discounted I can "prove" that God is a purple dinosaur with polka dot pajamas on his head and there'd be nothing you could do to even say I was wrong, never mind prove it.
Don't believe me? Then answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post.
How do you know that the bible is God's word?
Your answer, if you offer one at all, will be philosophical in nature.
Resting in Him,
Clete
And I have already, repeatedly responded to this by saying that God didn't need Paul for that! God could have sent Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark, Bartholomew or any one of the other Twelve Apostles to spread the gospel. But He didn't! If Saul was the prefect convert then why didn't God think that through enough to have done the conversion while Jesus was still on Earth? Why park the Twelve, who were given the great commission and the Holy Spirit by God the Son Himself and turn instead to a thirteenth guy who as of that time had been given neither of those things and who, in fact, was never given the great commission at all! It seems that Jesus just sort of wasted His time with the twelve and the whole post resurrection/great commission confab, didn't He?
That is what your doctrine implies, whether you admit it or not.
The reason God converted Saul and sent Paul to the world and parked the Twelve in Israel is because He had ended (temporarily) Israel's prophesied kingdom gospel program and turned instead to the Gentiles and sent Paul to preach "his (i.e. Paul's) gospel" which he did not learn from the twelve nor was he taught it but which he received by revelation from Jesus Christ Himself, which, if your doctrine is correct, there is no good reason for. Why give someone the same gospel that everyone else is teaching my direct revelation, especially when the everyone else that is preaching it happens to be the Spirit filled Twelve Apostles of the Messiah?
Resting in Him,
Clete
There are some on this thread that have engaged me on this topic that I've been batting around here with Jacob but not all of you have been actively engaged and since I can't tell what all gets read and what doesn't and because I really believe that this is a critically important topic that I want as many people exposed to as possible, I wanted to post the content of the opening post to the thread I simply linked to a few posts ago. And while I would hope that it would persuade some of you, I don't have any expectations about that one way or the other. My main purpose for posting it here is to, at the very least, communicate to those here who are interested in the issue of morality that it is possible to have a Christian worldview that is also rationally coherent. Indeed, it is my strongly held conviction that the only rationally coherent worldview is a Christian worldview. The following is only one small piece of that worldview, albeit a very important piece...
Our Moral God
The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question. To some the idea that God might not be moral is so ludicrous a thought that it would be down right blasphemous to even utter it aloud. After all, they say, if God is amoral (i.e. non-moral) then there can be no standard of right and wrong. But to those who take such a position it would come as quite a surprise to discover that there are at least as many, if not more, who think it an equally blasphemous thought to suggest that God is moral. After all, God is not subject to anyone or anything, including a moral standard - He is the standard! Right?
What is the source of such confusion? Well, there are many possible ways to answer that question, the most obvious of which has to do with the defining of terms and explaining in more detail what is meant when one says that God is, or is not, moral. But I don't believe that the problem can really be solved by a mere analysis of the semantics involved. This is not an issue of sophistry but rather it is a problem of philosophy. There is a more fundamentally philosophical issue involved here that I believe the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue do not understand nor do they even have any inkling of the issue's existence for that matter. The purpose of this short essay is to bring this issue to the attention of those on both sides of this issue and to explain how the God we serve is indeed moral but not because He follows or is subject to a set of rules nor because His nature defines morality, which is meaningless, but because God is rational.
In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God. The New King James renders the passage this way...
In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos".
So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...
John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word was God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used makes no sense.
This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of others who have used and acknowledge the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...
Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, lets suppose someone, for whatever reason (uh hem), rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason is he possibly can. If, the Living God is Logic, what conclusions then should this person come too? Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?
Now, bearing that in mind I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...
I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...
Rand also said,
Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...
All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's nature. Which, by the way, is not to say that Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God led to a great many errors, some of which are disastrous and grievously wrong. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.
Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...
Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?
I submit that in fact there is nothing an atheist or anyone else could say that would be more in line with the teaching a Scripture and that in fact we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact the God is Logic. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life. Thus, to say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. An amoral (non-moral) God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!
God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!
Clete Pfeiffer
3/24/2012
Our Moral God
The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question. To some the idea that God might not be moral is so ludicrous a thought that it would be down right blasphemous to even utter it aloud. After all, they say, if God is amoral (i.e. non-moral) then there can be no standard of right and wrong. But to those who take such a position it would come as quite a surprise to discover that there are at least as many, if not more, who think it an equally blasphemous thought to suggest that God is moral. After all, God is not subject to anyone or anything, including a moral standard - He is the standard! Right?
What is the source of such confusion? Well, there are many possible ways to answer that question, the most obvious of which has to do with the defining of terms and explaining in more detail what is meant when one says that God is, or is not, moral. But I don't believe that the problem can really be solved by a mere analysis of the semantics involved. This is not an issue of sophistry but rather it is a problem of philosophy. There is a more fundamentally philosophical issue involved here that I believe the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue do not understand nor do they even have any inkling of the issue's existence for that matter. The purpose of this short essay is to bring this issue to the attention of those on both sides of this issue and to explain how the God we serve is indeed moral but not because He follows or is subject to a set of rules nor because His nature defines morality, which is meaningless, but because God is rational.
In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God. The New King James renders the passage this way...
John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos".
So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...
John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word was God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used makes no sense.
This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of others who have used and acknowledge the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...
"...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.
"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V
Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary
Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, lets suppose someone, for whatever reason (uh hem), rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason is he possibly can. If, the Living God is Logic, what conclusions then should this person come too? Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?
Now, bearing that in mind I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...
John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...
"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.
Rand also said,
"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton
Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...
"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.
All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's nature. Which, by the way, is not to say that Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God led to a great many errors, some of which are disastrous and grievously wrong. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.
Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...
"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged
Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?
Proverbs 11:19 As righteousness leads to life, So he who pursues evil pursues it to his own death.
I submit that in fact there is nothing an atheist or anyone else could say that would be more in line with the teaching a Scripture and that in fact we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact the God is Logic. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life. Thus, to say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. An amoral (non-moral) God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!
God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!
Clete Pfeiffer
3/24/2012
achduke
Active member
The problem with the two gospels/two promises approach is that the bible only talks of one body and one church which are the same thing and have always have been the same thing.
Stephen called Israel in the Wilderness in Acts the Church.
Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
Israel has always been the church. They have not been surpassed nor replaced.
1 Corinthians 12:13 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Reading from Acts to Ephesians we see that there is only one body/church and Christ is a head of that church. The old testament and even Romans calls that church Israel that we are all grafted into.
I have not said anything about the Bible or God's word being arbitrary here anywhere. I don't know why you would think I believe or think that way. Apparently this is something you have thought about yourself.
You also said I want my doctrine to come from the Bible, which though I can say this is true in thinking about it in response to you was not something I said. I don't know where you are coming up with these things.
I posted the following recently in response to someone else, which may be of benefit to you now, about God's word.
Jacob said:
Now, after saying all of that I can try to share where I am coming from, without being philosophical (though you may doubt this, it is up to you whether or not you can break free from thinking my answer has to be philosophical in nature).
I believe you wanted to know why I believe the Bible is the word of God or how the Bible is the word of God. The Bible is a book. It is a book with 66 books in it. These books have been accepted by Jewish and Christian individuals, bodies, councils. But it is the nature of what is in them that makes them the word of God. The Bible contains the word of God so we can summarily call it the word of God. The Bible speaks of itself as the word of God. The writers or authors wrote as God gave them inspiration.
That is, you can know the Bible is the word of God both because others say it is and because you can read it for yourself and find out that way. What would be wrong is to say the Bible is not the word of God, because it is and we know it is.
God's Truth
New member
You are arguing against God Himself, for I gave you scripture that plainly says why God choose Paul.
You are stupid!
I never once suggested that God didn't choose Paul you slobbering idiot!
What I am telling you is that your doctrine doesn't have any way of accounting for WHY he called Paul as an apostle if his message was identical to that of the Twelve! Why didn't he just use the twelve guys He had just spent the last three years training and that He had just given the Holy Spirit too as well as the great commission?
Okay! That's IT! I'm not discussing this with you any longer. All I'm doing is repeating myself to a brick wall.
Last edited:
You have got to be kidding me!
You are impossible to communicate with. Just go believe whatever you want. I'm done.
Each of us should believe God, believe God at His word, and believe God's word.