tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post114374029240833046..comments2024-03-22T03:16:20.581-04:00Comments on Boanerges: Peccable or Impeccable: What do you think?Nate Mihelishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17702094516356506877noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post-1144089063793112432006-04-03T14:31:00.000-04:002006-04-03T14:31:00.000-04:00Bruno:Yes. Exactly. Thank you for putting it far m...Bruno:<BR/><BR/>Yes. Exactly. Thank you for putting it far more succinctly.<BR/><BR/>BTW, <BR/><BR/>Nice job on your NT paper; I already footnoted you in my senior sem paper on christology(which I'm sure you recognize is an unfathomable mark of prestige). I came to a similar conclusion regarding the metaphor of Jesus as the Light of the world in John's gospel during sermon prep a few years back. Though my work was not as academically rigorous as your paper, the correlation (your statements about "Son of God" and "Logos" and my own regarding light) are leading me to look at the fourth Gospel a little differently. Rather than a hodgepodge of metaphors (a characterization of my previous thoughts) it seems that many (all?) of them point towards Jesus as being the ultimate revealer of God.Nate Mihelishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17702094516356506877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post-1144032282311682652006-04-02T22:44:00.000-04:002006-04-02T22:44:00.000-04:00Your logic on this does make sense. Therefore, tho...Your logic on this does make sense. Therefore, those who would argue from the traditional stand point of impeccablity, i.e. a command does not necessitate the ability to obey, therefore a temptation does not necessitate the ability to sin, would be argueing faliciously due to category confusion (atleast the way you define them). I have no problem with what you are saying, I just never thought of it that way before. You may make a peccablist out of me yet!!OTWannabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14453227944830876488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post-1144032140482495302006-04-02T22:42:00.000-04:002006-04-02T22:42:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.OTWannabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14453227944830876488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post-1144003994480231812006-04-02T14:53:00.000-04:002006-04-02T14:53:00.000-04:00Nate,I think I like the distinction you are making...Nate,<BR/>I think I like the distinction you are making. If I understand you right, you are saying that a command is an objective reality--it is valid regardless of who experiences it, and a temptation must be subjective--it must be experienced to become reality. Therefore, since a command is objective, the Arminian objection is not valid. Since temptations are subjective, though, they must be experienced to even exist.Chris Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05714876342567159822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post-1143945814157053702006-04-01T21:43:00.000-05:002006-04-01T21:43:00.000-05:00I can't say I didn't see that coming; my last comm...I can't say I didn't see that coming; my last comment was just an attempt to buy some more time to think it over. I don't know that I can articulate the distinction that I'm seeing in lucid metaphysical categories. Here's the best I have to offer at this point. The nature of a command is that it issues forth from a person to an object. That object may be animate or inanimate; either way it does not take away from the essence of a command. Hence, Jesus can command a dead man (Lazarus come forth!) and he can call sinners to life. Likewise, he can command an impersonal object like a fig tree and it responds; or he could command an inanimate object like stones to change their molecular structure and become either bread or seed of Abraham (take your pick). <BR/><BR/>On the other hand a temptation is only a temptation when an object is tempted. There does not necessarily have to be an external source (i.e. James 1 seems to at least imply that we are tempted from within). However, in the absence of a sin nature (Jesus and Adam) there would need to be an external source. Either way, however, they must be genuinely tempted to yeild. There is no longer a parallel here with inanimate or impersonal objects. In other words, I don't think the serpent could have tempted the tree of life to sin; nor could Satan tempt a rock to transgress the moral law of God. I know it sounds tautalogical (though I don't' think it is) but it is not a temptation unless someone is tempted. Again, I ask, how does this make logical sense out of Heb 4:15?Nate Mihelishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17702094516356506877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post-1143849023846345392006-03-31T18:50:00.000-05:002006-03-31T18:50:00.000-05:00I was going more for poisoning the well. Perhaps ...I was going more for poisoning the well. Perhaps I should rephrase the question: "You are an Arminian." Oh . . . . no, wait . . . I meant to say, "If a command does not imply the ability to obey, why must a temptation?"T. Baylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00662602280196411572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post-1143817995646368332006-03-31T10:13:00.000-05:002006-03-31T10:13:00.000-05:00Simple. The arminians are wrong and I am right. Ni...Simple. The arminians are wrong and I am right. Nice red herring though :-)Nate Mihelishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17702094516356506877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21940273.post-1143769023254951452006-03-30T20:37:00.000-05:002006-03-30T20:37:00.000-05:00"When I say that I am tempted to do something, it ..."When I say that I am tempted to do something, it presupposes that I can do it." How would you distinguish this supposition from that of Arminians and the like who argue that a command or offer of the gospel presupposes man's ability to be obedient?T. Baylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00662602280196411572noreply@blogger.com