a very long thread

[Scott McCumber]

Really? And exactly how do you distinguish the two?  

I think the only 'truth" of Scriptue missing is an understanding of the power and deceitfulness of sin Lucas. That condition has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of knowledge. One only has to consider personal decisions made, even after we are saved, to realise and accept the truth of this. Christians of all people should be intimately familiar with this principle. Failure to understand it is why so many remain in spiritual infancy.  

Ahh yes, but we have suddently switched between my original contention that Knowledge of what is good (Plato) is enough to determine action to a Christian application.  Basically, here is what I have put forth:  If a Man were to know everything about everything, that Man would only do Good.  

Therefore, Plato is correct and Socrates is stupid  

Do you agree with this?  
--
lucas

Lucas,

Are you asking if Plato is correct and Socrates is stupid? Or are you asking if Man would only do Good if he had "perfect knowledge"?

S

[jesusfreak]

Lucas,

Are you asking if Plato is correct and Socrates is stupid? Or are you asking if Man would only do Good if he had "perfect knowledge"?

S

I was curious which one would be answered actually    A freudian consideration if you will.  

But more seriously, whether or not Man would do Good if Man knew everything.

--
lucas

[jesusfreak]

If man knew everything about  everything he would still transgress. Complete knowlege would in no way change his nature. The evidence?
That which he knows perfectly that is right and good for him to do, he does not, nay he cannot!
Adam failed and he was sinless.
The angelic being Lucifer failed and he was perfect.
Verne

If knowledge does not change nature, why would a Man ever turn to God? What would be the point of a Living God?  Why would Man need God at all?  It is by the grace of God we are given a pathway in which to circumvent our nature (ie, we are able to commune with God where before we were not)

Other than that, I would like to directly challenge your ending claims. God is perfect and nothing is God but God, albeit there exist imitators (enter Lucifer).  Therefore, Lucifer is not perfect.  Your declaration brings him to the level of God.....

I would also disagree with your synopsis of Adam.  My specific reasons for this are rather untraditional ones that may cause severe confusion if I state, so I won’t at this point (unless you really want me too ).  Basically, what would possibly lead you to this conclusion?  You're the one who pointed out that ignorance is not a defense...


As for supporting my argument that complete knowledge leads to perfect action - example, God.

--
lucas

[sfortescue]

Ezekiel 28:2-5,12,15,17
Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: with thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: by thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: ...  Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. ...  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. ...  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

There is a saying: Knowledge is power.

There is another saying: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Of course, the latter saying doesn't apply to God, meaning of course the real God.  The saying may well apply to any other arbitrary hypothetical being that is merely defined as having perfect knowledge.

The idea that perfect knowledge leads to perfect action needs to be qualified by defining what perfect is.  Suppose that two people have perfect knowledge.  Each wants what is best for himself: to rule everything to his own advantage.  Each has his own definition of what perfect is.

I learned something interesting from writing a computer program that completely analyzes all possible moves in the game tic-tac-toe.  If the computer decided its moves based only on whether it wins or loses, it seemed to make inferior moves.  Something was missing from the decision making process even though the computer was acting based on perfect knowledge.  I tried experimenting with different position evaluation formulas and found that the best results came from assigning arbitrary preferences to the final board positions.

An example from chess is easier to explain.  If you define a preference for ending the game sooner, then the computer will throw away pieces in order to end the game sooner, under the condition that it will still win.  The advantage of the arbitrary preference rule is that the computer will then prefer preserving resources in order to be in a better position to accomplish the arbitrary preference.

[Arthur]

The idea that perfect knowledge leads to perfect action needs to be qualified by defining what perfect is.  Suppose that two people have perfect knowledge.  Each wants what is best for himself: to rule everything to his own advantage.  Each has his own definition of what perfect is.

Wanting what is best for oneself, in a created being's own prideful perspective, is not perfection by God's standard.
The passage you quoted seems to indicate that Lucifer was perfect, however that was until inquity was found in his heart.  The moment he wanted to take a place higher than what was given to him by God (ref. Isa 14:13-14 "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God") was the moment he ceased to be perfect, for pride is imperfection.

True perfection must include humility and love.  These are both characteristics which God possesses. He is meek and lowly in heart.  God is love.

Arthur

[Arthur]

What is "creation" referring to in this verse? The KJV in some cases renders ktisis as "building".

I do believe that is related to the Greek word which best explains the creation, and that is kiss.  Keep is simple...I'm sure you know the rest

[Oscar]

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.  And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. Romans 8:22

What is "creation" referring to in this verse? The KJV in some cases renders ktisis as "building". There may be a good reason to conclude that the word in this context in not referring to humanity. This is evident from Paul's immediately  following observation:

And not only they, but ourselves also

clearly distinghuising a "they" of creation and an "ourselves" of creation.

The ourselves clearly refer to the sons of God who are to be revealed, and for which all the rest  of creation waits.
This same creation is decribed as groaning, travailing and in pain.

Who then is the "they" of creation?

Verne

Verne,

The NASV, which is usually considered to be a better translation, renders Romans 8:23 as:
"And not only this, but also we ourselves..."

Remember that in verse 19 you have "the creation".
In verse 20 you have "the creation" and "it".
In verse 21, "the creation itself".  It will be "...set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

So, I think "they" is "this", meaning the creation.

Say, you aren't one of those KJV only folks are you?  

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[sfortescue]

Romans 8:19-23  (translated from Russian)
For (the) creature with hope awaits (the) revelation of (the) sons of God, -- because (the) creature was subjected to vanity not willingly, but according to (the) will of (the one) having subjected ((it)), -- in hope, that even (the) creature itself will be freed from slavery to corruption into (the) liberty of (the) glory of (the) sons of God.  For (we) know, that (the) whole creature jointly groans and is tormented until now; and not only it, but also we ourselves, having rudiment of (the) Spirit, even we in ourselves groan, awaiting adoption, (the) redemption of our body.


Unlike Spanish, Russian normally requires the subject.  The absence of the explicit "we" signifies common knowledge rather than what specific people know.  The missing articles are simply because there are no articles in Russian.

There are parentheses in the text, here written doubled: "((it))".  I don't know what the parentheses mean, perhaps the same thing as the italics?  Another word "it" is in italics, which has the same significance as in the KJV, that the word was inserted by the translator and is not in the original.  The word "it" is feminine so that it agrees with the word creature.  Also, as in the KJV, the word creature is archaic and can also mean creation.

Since, in general, the wording in the Russian is often different from most other translations, it is evident that it was mostly an independent translation done without reference to the other translations.  There are some errors in it, a few rather serious.  Even though this translation was done in the middle of the 19th century, archaic words were used intentionally, perhaps with the intent of a more literal translation, since the archaic words had connotations more consistent with the archaic language of the original manuscripts of the Bible.  The archaic words combined with archaic gramatical constructions mean that it is difficult for most Russians to understand, like the KJV is here.

[Arthur]

Verne, I've been seeing you raise the stakes, but the only thing is I don't get your statement.  God is not arbitrary. Allah may be, but that's not who I believe in.
If you mean "divine plan" then it would be of course the greatest story ever told.  Is that what are you're getting at?

[Joe Sperling]

"Thou hast magnified  thy Word above all  thy Name"
Ps. 138:2.  His Word wouldn't happen to be what you are talking about, would it?

--Joe

[Scott McCumber]

"Thou hast magnified  thy Word above all  thy Name"
Ps. 138:2.  His Word wouldn't happen to be what you are talking about, would it?

--Joe

Excellent call Joe, but not quite what I had in mind. You are on very sound Scriptural ground though my man...
Verne

How about the glorification of the Son, Jesus Christ?

[Oscar]

Verne,

I figured that was where you were headed.

Does that mean that God does an eternal end zone dance?
 

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

Verne,

I figured that was where you were headed.

Does that mean that God does an eternal end zone dance?
 

Thomas Maddux

You betcha! He is going to have to find something a whole lot bigger to spike though... maybe Jupiter?  
Verne

     Back around the start of this year I decided I probably would not post any more on this thread.  It was difficult to restrain myself during the recent "pitchers' battle," but I stuck it out.
     Now, however, my hand is forced:  What, pray tell, is this strange "doctrine of the eternal endzone?" and who on earth is "Spike?"

al

[Margaret]

I know this is off-topic now, but it's about this thread.  I've been informed that Sondra vigorously asserts she's not of the Local Church.  I'm glad to hear it.  It was wrong of me to make a statement I hadn't personally researched, especially when it carried the implication of heresy (a factor I wasn't thinking of).  I'm sorry, everyone.  

The bulletin board context of my comment was a discussion about the lack of success in trying to communicate logically with those on swte.  The concept of the "spirit man" was introduced by Witness Lee, as I understand it - a derivation from Watchman Nee's "Spiritual Man".  Perhaps Sondra gets it via another source, but it's nevertheless the kind of mysticism that's not very subject to the rules of logical discourse.  

[Chuck Miller]

First, let me say that for anyone to use a pseudonym, instead of their real name, engenders suspicion, at least on my part,  as to their purpose for doing so.  As has been shown , it allows the user to insult and berate others while hiding behind a mask of anonymity.  What other purpose it could serve, I fail to see.  Of course, it could be used to give the user a favorable report by speaking of his or her self in the third person.

It has been strongly suggested that “Brass Wall” is really John Malone.  In light of so much information to which BW is privy concerning John, I admit that I would have to concur with the probablility of that supposition.  John’s and/or  BW’s failure to deny the allegation seems to reinforce the contention.  However, inasmuch as BW chooses to conceal his/her true identity,  I will defer my speculation,  and will simply afford little or no credibility to his/her postings.  Regarding the accolades that John receives from his friend, BW, let each of us who read them decide whether or not they are merited.  

All of that aside,  the real purpose of my post is to admonish both Brass Wall and Chuck Vanasse to consider the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and take the following actions.  

1.  Desist from any further postings of derogatory statements about one another (or anyone else).

“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.”     Ephesians 4:29                                                                                        

2.  Seek to be reconciled in accordance with Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5:23-24.

 "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”

3.  Do not refuse to abide by Jesus’ instruction on the basis of each one asserting that the other is not a “brother-in-Christ.”  Jesus alone knows our hearts, and to err on the side of  emotional speculation is much more dangerous that erring on the side of cautious consideration.  

4.  Give prayerful consideration to the damage your actions cause to the testimony of Jesus Christ to unbelievers as well as to believers.  Nothing is of more paramount importance than this.

5.  Remember Jesus commands us to love one another.  Disregard your personal doubts about the possibility of being reconciled to the other, and rely on the grace of our precious Savior to bring about reconciliation between the two of you.  It will edify and bring glory to Him.

If you chose to disregard this admonition, then I would suggest that each of you take a sabbatical from teaching  in your gatherings and spend time meditating upon obedience to Christ and His enabling grace and mercy.  

To Chuck,  I would entreat you to remember Ecclesiastes 10:12  “Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious.”
.
To Brass Wall, it is my admonition to drop the charade and reveal your identity or discontinue posting.  

To John Malone, I suggest you entreat Brass Wall to reveal his/her identity

To Brian I would suggest that you refrain from allowing pseudonymous postings unless it would be under extreme circumstances (I.e. “Kristin‘s” confession).  

 I will gladly listen to and consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations.

Chuck Miller

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer. Psalm 19:14