Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream
1058

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -4 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ BY YOUR STANDARDS, NOT ELECT ”
Page 1 | Page 4 ·  Found: 158 user comments posted recently.
News Item9/18/08 1:18 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
21
comments
Neil:

Do you know if Clark attacks the Teleological Argument and, if so, where one could read his rebuttal of it? I've read his take on the First Mover Proof but I don't remember seeing the other.

To which "Sophists" are you referring, out of curiosity?

Neil wrote:
"Leclerc distanced himself from 'intelligent design'..."
Why? Thomas Aquinas, declared a "Doctor of the Church" by Pius V, used the related Teleological Argument himself in his "Summa Theologica." Too bad it is logically flawed, which is why creationists should avoid it.
The thinking of Aquinas's Catholic disciples (aka "Sophists") was repeatedly attacked by the Reformers. Despite this, John Gerstner, RC Sproul & Norman Geisler have given him new respectability among "Protestants" today.

News Item8/27/08 1:21 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
32
comments
Neil wrote:
BYSNE, my hasty reply is that "good" either has an ethical sense opposing "evil", or the sense that it is something that serves God's eternal purposes. Genesis 1 calls the Creation "good", yet this would be absurd if "good" here was ethical. So "evil" could be "good," if "good" here means my 2nd definition and not the 1st, which would be a wicked, blatant contradiction.
I'm shooting from the hip here; I haven't pondered this question long enough to know if my response is solid.
Neil,
Provocative topic and interesting comments. I will do some more thinking about it as well.

News Item8/26/08 7:48 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
32
comments
Neil wrote:
BYSNE, I don't see how "God is, in a sense, beyond good and evil" follows from my posts. And what do you mean by "beyond?" Yes, I consider "ordain" a synonym for "cause."
hidemi, I think further replies to you would serve no purpose.
I took it from your post that God is capable of causing any act, for good or ill, yet nevertheless it could never be called a sin. At this point it became unclear to me what you were saying. Is this because God's actions aren't "constrained by" sin? By the Bible? If God can cause evil and yet it not be called a sin merely because God caused it, it seems hard to call what God caused evil in any meaningful sense. Nor would it be good. The predicates seemingly to fail to apply. God would just "do", and the notions of Good and Evil would be irrelevant, precisely because those can only apply to creatures like angels and humans.

News Item8/26/08 7:27 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
32
comments
Interesting, Neil. So, God is, in a sense, beyond good and evil. So, what would propositions like "God is good", "God is just", "God is love" mean? Would they be unintelligible? Would the predicates be univocal? Equivocal? Something else? Are we allowed to formulate propositions like those? I'm just trying to get clear on what you are saying here.

Also, what do you mean by "ordain"? Is it the same thing as "cause"?


News Item8/22/08 2:28 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
16
comments
Thanks for the clarification, gents. I was wondering what made everyone worked up about it. Would you say that the Bible contains a certain view of human psychology?

News Item8/21/08 8:23 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
16
comments
If I may ask, why is everyone against Psychology? And what is meant here by "Psychology"?

News Item7/31/08 6:37 PM
By Your Standards Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
34
comments
Sorry to take up thread space with the "test" post. I can't seem to post my message. And the message doesn't seem to be very controversial.

News Item7/31/08 6:18 PM
By Your Standards Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
34
comments
test

News Item6/2/08 6:21 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
27
comments
Interesting discussion, although I can't shake the feeling that we're heading toward some kind of Cartesian rationalism which may lead us to solipsism, or a species of pragmatism, which may terminate in a virulent strain of skepticism. This could lead us to the same place as rationalism.

News Item5/2/08 12:18 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
5
comments
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest use of atonement is in 1513 by Sir Thomas More, and this use is in a non-theological context. I'm not sure how it's being used in the USA Today article.

News Item4/23/08 12:51 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
19
comments
Neil wrote:
John, yes I did, & By Your Stds, what I posted is distinct from objections to the Cosmological Argument, which I do not recall this film mentioning or implying. But I do believe this argument commits a similiar error by begging the question.
I read the TF .pdf on Clark's take on the argument. He has an interesting modernist take on it.

I must admit, I only trust wikipedia if I can cross check it with a known expert, especially when it comes to philosophical argumentation.


News Item4/23/08 12:45 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
19
comments
Neil wrote:
Discovery Institute's "Privileged Planet" is indeed nicely made & even encouraging, but in endorsing the Anthropic Principle as it does, it in effect repeats the untenable Teleological Argument for the existence of God. Even if one concedes that the universe has design & purpose, it does not logically follow that the Scriptural Trinity made it - perhaps Zeus or Voltaire's "committee of gods" did. Thomas Aquinas et al. couldn't avoid begging the question here. Apologetics has been hindered by use of this argument.
Now it may be acceptable if one uses it ad-hominem - assume your opponent's probablistic empirical principles for the sake of argument.
Even if you don't agree with this, it's best to be aware of objections *before* encountering a well-briefed atheist.
Out of curiosity, Neil, are you following Gordon Clark's rebuttal of the cosmological proof for God's existence? I believe you mentioned him a few years ago. I know you're talking about the teleological proof here, however.

News Item4/13/08 1:07 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
60
comments
Bernie:

This presents a problem. If I say "yes", you'll just assume I'm damned to Hell and not take anything I say seriously since I couldn't know anything. If I say "no", you'll just say I'm just trying to stir up trouble (which I'm not trying to do) and that I'm being disingenuous (which I'm not). I suspect you wouldn't be happy with either answer. So let's just say I'm a serious enquirer into Christianity so I take many positions and people seriously. But part of taking them seriously is trying to understand them and not just using hearsay as an argument. I think I've made that point quite clear. So, no, it's not a silly game. I take you as a serious interlocutor. Jim, on the other hand....


News Item4/12/08 10:42 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
60
comments
Bernie:

I would assume if you say "your" that would mean I possess it. The implication is that there is intimate involvement with the "harlot" and indeed that I solicit a prostitute, meaning the Catholic Church. If that's not calling me a Catholic I'm not sure what is.

Jim:

I would hardly call someone who takes the obligation to represent arguments fairly seriously a troll. But then again, you never represent any arguments. You merely post links to other people who may or may not get them right. That sure makes your life easy.


News Item4/12/08 3:54 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
60
comments
I think what is happening is that we're talking past one another. I will, however, say this.
1. To represent a position correctly is not to agree with it.
2. To understand the position is not necessarily to belong to the group that holds the position.

Bernie:
How do you have such privileged access to my church membership card? Nowhere have I said I was Catholic. I may be Taoist for all you know. Or perhaps an Atheist. At least ask before you hurl accusations.


News Item4/11/08 10:32 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
60
comments
No, actually. It was really a nice way of saying that since you got it wrong, neither Lance nor anyone else has to take you seriously.

But this is descending into a schoolyard argument. The point is this: Your position might be right. But you can't say that you are arguing against the Catholic view, because you are not representing the Catholic view accurately.


News Item4/11/08 10:25 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
60
comments
bernie wrote:
This is not a purifying purgatory to see whether you make it, no where in scripture is purgatory found, or taught by God.
Bernie:
Take a look at 1030 and then read 1031. Next, look at 1033. You'll see that it's not a matter of "seeing if you make it" nor is it a place for second chances. At least you looked in the Catechism to see what the Catholics actually believe.

News Item4/11/08 10:13 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
60
comments
I'm not asking you to make a case for or against the doctrine. Neither will I make a case for or against it. I'm asking you to represent the doctrine correctly, because your post shows that you don't understand it. And I can say this and not be a proponent of the doctrine.

If you're wrong about a position, your attack is going to miss its target.

So, it looks like I ended up doing the work for you.


News Item4/11/08 8:08 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
60
comments
No, a summary of a doctrine, not a commentary, like the one you keep repeating.

News Item4/11/08 6:58 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
60
comments
Jim:

What is that verse supposed to prove?

Observation Post:

Can you give us a succinct summary of the doctrine of Purgatory?

Jump to Page : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8





Technology, Not Techniques

Shawn Reynolds
Abundant Mercy For Life in Him

Sovereign Grace Church
Sunday Service
Play! | MP3

Mark S. Wisniewski
Sobreviviendo El Juicio

Lucas - Spanish 2023
Iglesia Nueva Obra en...
Play! | MP3

Dr. Fred DeRuvo
Daniel 7 Pt 3 Interpretation..

Book of Daniel
Study-Grow-Know Ministries
Video!Play! | MP4

Sponsor:
New Podcast for Pastors from NAMB

Join podc­ast host, Ken Whitten & guests Tony Dungy, H.B. Charlr­es, Jr. & more.
https://www.namb.net/podcas..

Sponsor:
The Book Of Romans

Join Pastor Thomas Irvin for a study thr­ough the book of Rom­ans, verse by verse, at G
https://www.sermonaudio.com..

Sermon: Lord, Open Our Eyes To See You
Shawn Reynolds

SPONSOR | 5,000+

SPONSOR



SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up
FOLLOW US


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
Watch
Android
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
TECH TALKS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Internationalization
Podcasting
Listen Line
Events | Notices
Transcription
Business Cards New!
QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

SUPPORT
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
Stories
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Privacy Policy

THE VAULT VLOG
Technology, Not Techniques New!
Copyright © 2024 SermonAudio.