Yes, that’s very helpful distinction! The biblical vision of divine omnipotence is clearly about creating and sustaining the things that are - not about imaginary power over imaginary things that someone deems possible.
P. S. However, the analogy with a writer doesn’t imply the latter.
3 Likes
Uh, you failed to read and reply to all I stated. I chose my words carefully. Notice, I did not say “originated” but referred to Greek polytheistic predecessors. The Greeks followed in the stream of previous polytheists. You also missed the point of the “unknown god.” That is, the Athenians referred to an “unknown” god and thereby raised a materialist monument of idolatry in worship according to their imagination, as I stated, rather than according to revelation. Therefore, it would be proper to identify Paul’s own theology he lays out in Romans to determine how other religions treat God in the exchange for gods. The Athenian “unknown god” was one among the many gods they worshipped and not the one true God. They followed in the path of prior polytheists as I pointed out.
John Calvin affirms the Athenians vain imaginations in this same passage, “Furthermore, whosoever doth worship God without any certainty, he worshippeth his own inventions instead of God. Howsoever credulous men do flatter themselves, yet neither doth God allow any religion without knowledge and truth, neither ought it to be counted holy and lawful. Yea, how proud soever they be, yet because they doubt in their consciences, they must needs be convict by their own judgment. For superstition is always fearful, and doth ever know and then coin some new thing” (Calvin, John. Calvin’s Complete Commentaries (Kindle Locations 490119-490124). Kindle Edition).
Calvin goes on to say, “If God allow no worship but that which is agreeable to his Word, how doth Paul give this praise to men, who did dote without measure that they worshipped God? For Christ, in condemning the Samaritans, is content with this one principle, in that they worship God without knowledge, (John 4:22) and yet they did boast that they worshipped the God of Abraham. Then, what shall we say of the men of Athens, who, having buried and quite put out the remembrance of the true God, had put in place of him Jupiter, Mercury, Pallas, and all that filthy rabble? I answer, that Paul doth not in the place commend that which the men of Athens had done; but taketh from their affection, though it were corrupt, free matter for teaching” (Calvin, 490149-490156).
Calvin thus performs true astute exegesis by using integrative theology (integrating the biblical text with systemative theology). True exegesis does not claim, “It’s not in the text.” Rather it applies the analogy of faith principle you might wish to acquaint yourself with as well as with integrative theology.
Your formula does not derive from biblical theology. Besides, your ambiguous pronoun lacks an antecedent thereby not informing the reader what “is clear”. Besides, again by using an undefined independent cause, you cannot even establish or identify any effect or dependency as you assert, leading to your conclusion being a non-sequitur and wholly without logical merit.
Again, you raise faulty logic.I never mentioned having to read YEC literature. The acronym itself derived from human construct and itself is not in the Bible. You erroneously imposed an acronym onto what I wrote.
Then you use “does not require,” thereby establishing a faulty condition to my comments, making your comment a double straw man. Requirement is a faulty argument, because it presupposes a certain condition must be met for acceptance of an unsupported premise. Additionally, your statement is actually an unsupported premise, which means it is the fallacy of hasty generalization. That is, it is a claim without support. Claims without support have no merit.
That’s not what Paul told them.
Had a screwed-up Christology, among other errors.
Not true – the point of exegesis is to discern what the text says, nothing more and nothing less.
“Scripture along”? Who was discussing “along”? You raise a straw man when misquoting what I wrote. I never wrote “Scripture only”. You do not appear to know the difference between the usage of terms of “alone” and “only”. Of course, the Reformers did not mean “Bible only” when they affirmed Scripture alone. It is apparent that you have not read the wide-range of literature on the distinction. The Reformers affirmed “sola Scriptura” and not “solo Scriptura”. You are mistaken.
Merrill Unger wrote, “Critics who submit to Scripture only in part are not wholly free for truth. Their fancied freedom of nonsubjection to God’s Word is really intellectual anarchy. This academic lawlessness which is written in such broad letters over nineteenth-century destructive criticism is still with us and vitiates so much of twentieth-century alleged “scientific” scholarship.” (Bibliotheca Sacra, 121:481, Jan 1964)
Um, what? It’s basic logic, which you supposedly understand.
You don’t grasp the simple grammar of an “if . . . then” statement?
This just adds evidence to what I’ve said before: you aren’t interested in actual discussion, you’re arguing just to argue. Your pretense at analyzing the grammar is nothing but obfuscation.
Either basic logic escapes you or you are being deliberately argumentative. If you’d been one of my students in freshman remedial reading comprehension class I wouldn’t even have handed this back to you, I’d have tossed it in the trash and told you to start over because you’re not grasping the plain sense of simple statements.
That was not the only reason. The Westminster Confession clearly stated, " 3. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."
It is the word of God!! Period.
Here is a true paragon of consistency!
Cite source. All you provide is a personal unsupported assault on Calvin. That assault IS NOT a rebuttal to what I wrote but an attack. Have you even read the Institutes? I did several times. If you disagree with his Christology, then you are in error. So stop with your personal assaults on theologians unless you can specifically cite their works to show where they are wrong. To show he is wrong, you must do so with the Scriptures. Therefore, you MUST know the Scriptures and Calvin sufficiently to rebut him.
So cite Calvin’s works where you believe he is wrong on Christology. I can look it up and compare your explanation with his. Also, don’t say as you have said in the past, “I don’t have to.” Otherwise you are wrong and are without knowledge of Calvin or for that matter any of the Reformers…
Erroneous hasty generalization. I suppose you never heard of the analogy of Scripture principle. You need to come up to speed on integrative theology for biblical interpretation and proper exegesis and not engage in faulty thinking.
Again, you engage in an ambiguous antecedent for your pronoun and faulty understanding of the text. Besides, you are waaaaay off topic with your continued logical fallacy of hasty generalization. But of course you do not appear to know what that fallacy is.
Only for people incapable of following simple English.
Calvin’s wrong on his view of the Eucharist – he claims the human nature of Jesus can only be in Heaven. That’s a violation of the Definition of Chalcedon.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.