Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[Samie]

3 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Is it possible to change any SDA doctrine?  In the last 100 years have any major changes ever happened?  With that in mind, do you think you are in for a long wait?  

Maybe so.  But in the meantime, I am into discussions in cyberspace. Not in the local churches.

[Samie]

But I must admit, I am very vocal in our Tagalog class at AIIAS, hoping that someone from AIIAS will confront me about it. And I think many among our class members are interested in my position. Modesty aside, when the SS teacher is absent, they want me to take over, even though they know that I usually talk about my position when asked to teach.

[Wingnut]

8 minutes ago, Samie said:

I am not very vocal about this in the local churches. But I have experienced being ostracized, and even my only daughter was affected when he heard her Bible teacher talking against me behind my back when she was in junior high school.

That sounds like a lot further back than 2012.  Around which year did you first get the idea, if you don't mind my asking?

[Samie]

Around 1986 or 1987, but definitely before 1990.

[pnattmbtc]

3 hours ago, Samie said:

Really?

^NKJ John 14:29 "And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe.

 

Just because your position does not allow you to answer the question and be proven wrong, you want me to ask another question.  Pretending that the question is based on a false premise, does not make it so. Just like ostriches do.

Well, I studied in the school of Christ. In that school, we are told:

^NKJ 1 Corinthians 3:19-21   ¹⁹ For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness";  ²⁰ and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile

Software difficulties.  Will make the best of this.

1.Yes, really.  This verse does not imply the future is fixed.  Jesus was saying He would go to the Father.  Remember that God acts in human history.  There is no issue of free will here; Jesus going to the Father doesn't impact anybody's free will.

2.My position doesn't prevent my from answering your question, but your false premise, as I explained.  Have you stopped beating your wife?  Does you position stop you from answering this question, or a false premise?

3.Your assertion that your false premise is making like an ostrich is mean spirited and not intelligent.

4.I didn't see the point in your last comment.

[Samie]

Nor do I say the future is fixed. God knows the future, but He does not fix it.

You are simply hiding your head in the sand, pretending that there is no danger to your position, by simply brushing aside my question as having a false premise, when actually your position prevents you from answering it because you will be proven wrong when you try to answer it.

To the new readers of this thread, my question that Pnatt says has a false premise is this: "Before the creation of this world, did God know that Adam will fall into sin?"

Sorry, if you are hurt by my referring to your style of addressing the current issue as an ostrich defense.

[Wingnut]

18 minutes ago, Samie said:

Modesty aside, when the SS teacher is absent, they want me to take over, even though they know that I usually talk about my position when asked to teach.

That is because you are a nice person and relate well to kids obviously.  But does SS not have a fixed program one must stick to?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

software glitch, ignore

[Samie]

2 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

That is because you are a nice person and relate well to kids obviously.  But does SS not have a fixed program one must stick to?

Yes, there's of course the SS Lesson Quarterly. But I always try to find an opening where I can propagate what I think is truth. And then relate it to what is in the Quarterly. DA 638 is one example.

[pnattmbtc]

(addressing to 8thday) Another point that came to mind, even if God were as you say, the proof would still hold.  That is, God could still have everything written in a book, and the paradox would apply as explained.

Your proof didn't hold, as I have shown:

  5 hours ago, Samie said:
You look forward in the book to see what you will be doing an hour hence, and if it says you will be looking in the book, you will not look in the book, BUT God will cause your eyes to remain open and hold the book before your eyes, but if it says you will not be looking in the book, you will look in the book, BUT God will make the book invisible you won't see it.

God had done much more difficult things than just holding your eyes open or making the book invisible. And your proof crumbles into dust.

But you hide your head in the sand.

Quote

"But you hide your head in the sand."

This is ad hominem, which has no place in logical discourse, especially one dealing with the soundness of an argument.

Quote

God had done much more difficult things than just holding your eyes open or making the book invisible.

As I explained, this is irrelevant.  As I also explained, the whole argument can be couched without mentioning God at all, which I did.  The fact that I have to explain this to you is evidence you don't understand the argument.

Quote

And your proof crumbles into dust.

This statement is absurd.  How could an irrelevant point crumble an argument?  These statements simply show you don't understand the argument.  You can't hope to refute an argument you don't understand.  This is a logical proof which has nothing to do with God.  It would be as if you responded to a proof of Euclid's by saying that God could make triangles which are squares.

Another point is that that argument doesn't rely on the book.  The book was simply a means to end, of demonstrating the existence of a paradox.  The paradox exists not because of God, or because of the hypothetical book, but because of the premise that there is such a thing as a single future and still be able to choose among different alternatives.

Given your stance on Eph. 2, however, I don't even know if this is an issue for you.  Do you hold to the Arminian position regarding free will or the Calvinist one?

[Wingnut]

2 minutes ago, Samie said:

Yes, there's of course the SS Lesson Quarterly. But I always try to find an opening where I can propagate what I think is truth. And then relate it to what is in the Quarterly. DA 638 is one example.

Why would the life-raft be so important to you that "I always try to find an opening where I can propagate what I think is truth"?

Surely the most important priority would be to get all kids in SS saved?

If they are in the life-raft already, surely it will not matter to them, whether they know or not?

[Samie]

3 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

But you hide your head in the sand.

Quote

"But you hide your head in the sand."

This is ad hominem, which has no place in logical discourse, especially one dealing with the soundness of an argument.

That's for me an idiomatic expression. If you considered that ad hominem, then for the 2nd time, I say, sorry.

4 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

 

Quote

God had done much more difficult things than just holding your eyes open or making the book invisible.

As I explained, this is irrelevant.

You did not explain its irrelevance; you just said it is irrelevant.  That is your usual style of evading an issue that places your position in jeopardy.  Call it having false premise, irrelevant.

[pnattmbtc]

6 minutes ago, Samie said:

Nor do I say the future is fixed. God knows the future, but He does not fix it.

You are simply hiding your head in the sand, pretending that there is no danger to your position, by simply brushing aside my question as having a false premise, when actually your position prevents you from answering it because you will be proven wrong when you try to answer it.

To the new readers of this thread, my question that Pnatt says has a false premise is this: "Before the creation of this world, did God know that Adam will fall into sin?"

Sorry, if you are hurt by my referring to your style of addressing the current issue as an ostrich defense.

1.You don't have to say the future is fixed, because it is inference from what you've been saying.

2.If God knows the future as fixed, it must be fixed, because God knows things as they are, not as they are not.

3.It doesn't matter who fixes it, just that it is fixed.

4.Regarding the statement that I'm hiding my head in the sand, this is mean-spirited and unenlightened.  Once again, have you stopped beating your wife?  This is a yes or no question.  I noticed you haven't answered it.  Yes or no, which is it?

5.Before the creation of the world, God foresaw all possibilities, including those in which Adam and Eve fell and those where they didn't.  Your position is logically that it could not have happened that Adam and Even would not fall.  That's a problem.

6.Apparently you aren't sorry because you keep repeating it.  If you're really sorry, don't say you're sorry, but quit making ad hominem attacks and simply deal with the issues.

[Samie]

2 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Why would the life-raft be so important to you that "I always try to find an opening where I can propagate what I think is truth"?

Surely the most important priority would be to get all kids in SS saved?

If they are in the life-raft already, surely it will not matter to them, whether they know or not?

We are all adults at our SS Class. And what I am always emphasizing is overcoming evil with good, because only overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL.  Even if they are already in the life-raft they can still be blotted out from the BOL.

[pnattmbtc]

4 minutes ago, Samie said:

That's for me an idiomatic expression. If you considered that ad hominem, then for the 2nd time, I say, sorry.

You did not explain its irrelevance; you just said it is irrelevant.  That is your usual style of evading an issue that places your position in jeopardy.  Call it having false premise, irrelevant.

I did explain why it's irrelevant.  I stated that the argument has not to do with God.  I've also explained the argument is an ontological one, not an epistemological one.  Your response is treating the argument as if it were epistemological argument, but it isn't, which is why your comments were irrelevant.

Also did I say your response carried false premise?  I don't remember that.  I said that about your yes/no question, not about your response to the argument, as I recall.

[Samie]

4 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

1.You don't have to say the future is fixed, because it is inference from what you've been saying.

2.If God knows the future as fixed, it must be fixed, because God knows things as they are, not as they are not.

3.It doesn't matter who fixes it, just that it is fixed.

1. That's putting words into my mouth.

2. That's your presumption about God.

3. That's your view, not mine.

[pnattmbtc]

7 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

1.You don't have to say the future is fixed, because it is inference from what you've been saying.

2.If God knows the future as fixed, it must be fixed, because God knows things as they are, not as they are not.

3.It doesn't matter who fixes it, just that it is fixed.

 

Quote

 

Samie:1. That's putting words into my mouth.

2. That's your presumption about God.

3. That's your view, not mine.

 

1.No, it's just reasoning from what you've said.

2.This is just simple logic.  Think about it Samie.  Can God know something to be different than what it actually is?

3. This response isn't clear.  What is "it"?  Are you asserting that it does matter who fixes the future?  Or that it doesn't matter that the future is fixed?  What is it you are disagreeing with?  

[Samie]

4 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

I did explain why it's irrelevant.  I stated that the argument has not to do with God.  I've also explained the argument is an ontological one, not an epistemological one.  Your response is treating the argument as if it were epistemological argument, but it isn't, which is why your comments were irrelevant.

Not everyone is Ph. D. like you. Don't speak in jargons, brother.  Stating that an argument has nothing to do with God when we are talking about God does not make a good reflection for a Ph.D.

[pnattmbtc]

3 minutes ago, Samie said:

Not everyone is Ph. D. like you. Don't speak in jargons, brother.  Stating that an argument has nothing to do with God when we are talking about God does not make a good reflection for a Ph.D.

The argument isn't about God, it's about the future.  It's an argument about how the future is (ontological), not about what one knows about the future (epistemelogical).  This is why your statements about God were irrelevant to the argument.  I could have said a computer in the place of God, and it wouldn't have changed the argument in any way.

[Samie]

7 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Also did I say your response carried false premise?  I don't remember that.  I said that about your yes/no question, not about your response to the argument, as I recall.

You were saying my question is based on a false premise.

[pnattmbtc]

Just now, Samie said:

You were saying my question is based on a false premise.

Yes, but you said this in response to the argument.  I didn't claim you were making a false premise in regards to your response to the argument, so your comment about the false premise was inaccurate.  I said your response was irrelevant because it didn't deal with the issues addressed by the argument.

[Samie]

1 minute ago, pnattmbtc said:

The argument isn't about God, it's about the future.  It's an argument about how the future is (ontological), not about what one knows about the future (epistemiological).  This is why your statements about God were irrelevant to the argument.  I could have said a computer in the place of God, and it wouldn't have changed the argument in any way.

The issue is about God and that whether He knows before He created this world that Adam will fall into sin.

[Wingnut]

4 minutes ago, Samie said:

We are all adults at our SS Class. And what I am always emphasizing is overcoming evil with good, because only overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL.  Even if they are already in the life-raft they can still be blotted out from the BOL.

OK.  I thought you were referring to Sabbath School for the kiddies.

But what is it about the life-raft that tickles your fancy so much that you bring it up every time?  Surely you have had other different ideas, just as much of interest to you?  Why has this one lasted since 1987?  I get new ideas constantly, one of which was the Christ slain at the flood one which I voiced in a post today. I probably will have discarded it by tomorrow.  

 

[Samie]

You refused to answer that question saying that is just like the question "have you stopped beating your wife?". But you never explained how.

[Samie]

2 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

OK.  I thought you were referring to Sabbath School for the kiddies.

But what is it about the life-raft that tickles your fancy so much that you bring it up every time?  Surely you have had other different ideas, just as much of interest to you?  Why has this one lasted since 1987?  I get new ideas constantly, one of which was the Christ slain at the flood one which I voiced in a post today. I probably will have discarded it by tomorrow.  

I don't usually voice out anything I am not sure of, especially when it concerns biblical truth. And Yes, there are many more gems of truth that I have gathered from my personal study of the Bible.