Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[Vic C.]

Yes it has Jason, yes it has. ;-)

Oh man, I didn't want to enter into it, basically because I am responding as much on feeling as I am with knowledge and that doesn't not make for a good defense, but...

On the other hand, I do see where you are coming from. I just think the weight of the scriptures does suggest that God indeed does have to react to man's actions.

If you did, you'd understand that I am applying God's Permissive Will to this, which I believe HE does possess. HE allows certain things to happen and disallows things that would possibly hinder HIS plan. Would you agree to that? Does it even make sense or am I thinking too carnally now? 8-) (I know, no scripture provided - bad vic)

 

[stranger]

Hello Stranger,
Calvinism has always maintained the truth of Genesis 1:31. So, I'm not sure what it is your implying, or if you are just making some kind of related remark. Could you be a bit more clear? I would appreciate it, especially if you have an argument you would like to share.
Thanks.

Red Beetle

Yes, God did create people He did not love.

The implication from Gen1:31 is this that God loved Adam whom He created.

Other boundaries are transgressed if arguments are not worded carefully, eg. making God the author of evil as believed by some.

Blessings: stranger

 

[JM]

The stories are valuable mechanisms to explore the coherence of various ideas. You are, of course, under no obligation to respond to them.

Fair enough.

 

[JM]

The implication from Gen1:31 is this that God loved Adam whom He created.

Other boundaries are transgressed if arguments are not worded carefully, eg. making God the author of evil as believed by some.

Blessings: stranger

Howdy stranger,

Quote: Calvinism must often defend itself against the charge of making God the author of sin.

To the libertarian, the Reformed denial is disingenuous. To be sure, a Calvinist will never say, in so many words, that God is the “author†of sin, but doesn’t his belief-system imply that God is the author of sin? If God foreordained the fall, and brought it to pass according to his providence, then does that not make him the author of sin? So how can a Calvinist, in all sincerity, deny the charge?

But what, exactly, is being affirmed or denied by the “authorship†of sin? What does this form of words even mean? And why does so much attention center on this particular form of words?

It is odd how often this charge is leveled against Reformed theology, and denied by Reformed theology, without either side defining its terms. It’s almost like one of those old idioms, such as “shooting the bull†or “skin of our teeth,†which everyone continues to use although no one remembers where it came from or what it originally meant.

This is not a simple question to answer. To begin with, at least three languages figure in the answer: English, Latin, and French. We might even thrown in Italian inasmuch as the debate was conducted, in part, between Italian Catholics (e.g. Bellarmine, Castillio) and Italian Calvinists (e.g. Turretin, Peter Martyr).

It also operates at several potential levels. There is the relation of contemporary English usage to historical English usage, as well as period French, Medieval Latin, and Classical Latin.

There are both direct and indirect sources of influence. You have Latin mediated into English via the Norman Conquest. You have Calvin, as a Frenchman, writing in French and Latin. Ditto: Beza. You have the impact of Calvin’s formulations on later Reformed usage. And although the Westminster Confession was written in English, it was written by men who read, wrote, and even spoke Latin.

In contemporary popular usage, an “author†is synonymous with a “writer.†Now, when modern-day libertarians say that Calvinism make God the “author†of sin, and when a contemporary Calvinist denies the charge, is the libertarian alleging that God is the “writer†of sin? And is the Calvinist denying that God is the “writer†of sin?

Literally speaking, it is nonsensical to characterize God as the “writer†of sin. Even for the sake of argument, that description would amount to a category error. So, presumably, the libertarian has something else in mind. And what could that be?

Well, contemporary usage also employs “author†as a metaphor for certain causal connections. The meaning is still literal (a “writerâ€Â), but the application is figurative. So is that what the libertarian has in mind?

But what is objectionable about this literary metaphor in application to God? After all, Scripture itself uses literary metaphors to describe God’s economic relations. God “spoke†the world into being (Gen 1; Ps 33:6). Jesus is the Logos (Jn 1:1,14). There is a book of life as well as a book of judgment (Ps 69:28; 139:16; Dan 7:10; 12:1; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12-13,15; 21:27). Natural revelation is analogous to divine speech (Ps 19:1-4; 147:15,18).

John Frame has outlined an authorial model of God’s relation to the world. Cf. The Doctrine of God (P&R 2002), 156-58; 179-80.

Perhaps, then, the operative sense goes back to some older meaning of the word. According to the OED, the etymology of the word traces its way back through modern French (“auteurâ€Â), Old French (“autorâ€Â), and Anglo-French (“autourâ€Â) to the Latin noun “auctor,†from the verb “augere.â€Â

This is not to say that etymology governs the import. Indeed, the OED goes on to note a nodal point of semantic interference, due to “Medieval Latin confusion of ‘auctor’ and ‘actor’,†The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford 1971), 1:143.

The OED gives four basic meanings: (i) “a person who originates or gives existence to anythingâ€Â; (ii) “one who begets; a father, an ancestorâ€Â; (iii) “one who sets forth the written statements; (iv) “the person on whose authority a statement is made.â€Â

In context, (ii) and (iv) are inapplicable. So only (i) and (iii) would be in play. We’ve already discussed (iii).

Under (i), several semantic variants are listed: (b) “the Creatorâ€Â; (c) “he who gives rise to or causes an action, event, circumstances, state, or condition of thingsâ€Â; (d) “he who authorizes or instigates; the prompter or mover.â€Â

Since the OED drew attention to conflated connotations, it’s worth visiting the entry for “actor,†for which such senses are given as “agent or factor,†“a term in Roman law,†“one who acts, or performs any action, or takes part in any affair; a doer,†“one personates a character, or acts a part; a stage-player, or dramatic performer,†ibid. 24.

Of course, the entry is for the Latin derivative and not the original. Still, there is at least some degree of semantic association and area of overlap--especially as a direct carryover from Roman law. And, indeed, “attorney†is one of the denotations for “actor†in Medieval Latin. Cf. Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden: Brill 1984), 14.

Incidentally, this branches off into such Latin derivatives as the Italian “atto†(“act, action, deedâ€Â) and the English word “attorney.â€Â

Moving to Medieval Latin, “auctor†has several senses, including “the perpetrator of a crime,†and the “one who gives assent,†Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden: Brill 1984), 69.

Shifting to French usage, “auteur†is a 12C load-word from the Latin “auctor.†Among other senses, it carries the meaning of the instigator or chief party (“instigateur, chef de partiâ€Â), as well as the person responsible for a choice, or the one who commits a reprehensible crime (“personne qui est responsable d’une chose, qui a commis un acte reprehensibleâ€Â), Grand larousse de la langue francaise (Paris 1971), 1:320.

Of course, The Larousee is principally concerned with modern French usage. For period usage, such as we would find in Calvin or Beza, we turn to the entry in another reference work:

“Auteur†first occurs in the 12C (“apparu douzieme siecleâ€Â) where it is a load-word from the Latin “auctor†(“est un emprunt au latin auctorâ€Â), derived, in turn, from “augere†(“Le mot est derive du verbe augereâ€Â), Dictionnaire historique de la langue francaise (Paris 1992), 1:145.

The entry goes on to describe the original meaning of the word, first in sacred and later profane usage (“Le sens initial due latin, qui l’apparente a augur [>augure] serait religieux, ‘celui qui fait croitre’ [‘one who causes to grow’], puis social, ‘celui qui fonde et etablit†[‘one who functions as an authorized representative or founder’).

The final meaning of the Latin word, which is retained in French usage, comprises the Christian Latin sense of “auctor†to denote God, along with the associative sense of the agent or doer of the deed, by assimilating the Latin word with the French verb “agir†(“le mot a enfin pris les valeurs que le francais retiendra, y compris celle du latin chretien, ou auctor sert a designer Dieu, ce qui a pu entrainer de confusions avec actor, derive de agere ‘agir†[>acteaur, a acte]â€Â), ibid. 145.

Although this semantic association is in the nature of a folk etymology, based on assonance, it figures, nonetheless,in how the word was understood and intended.

Turning to classical Latin, the standard reference work gives no fewer than 15 basic definitions for “auctor,†not including additional semantic variants under a given heading. Among the more relevant senses are: an authority-figure, or one who authorizes another; an advocate; a prime mover or agent, originator, initiator, cause, or source; the doer (of an action), performer, agent (in spec. contrast w. some person less directly concerned with it, or in contrast w. the action itself); the Author of our being, the Creator; a paragon; fundamental standard or basis. Cf. The Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1983), 204-206.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/04/ ... sin-1.html



The Author of Sin By Cheung
http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

 

[christian_soldier]

2 Peter 3
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[stranger]

Howdy stranger,
But what, exactly, is being affirmed or denied by the “authorship†of sin? What does this form of words even mean? And why does so much attention center on this particular form of words?

Hi JM,

The essence of the argument is this: Did God create 'evil'? Like most discussions it has historical roots but my focus is on what is said on this forum. It is a common charge to attribute the original of evil to God - it is as much an apologetic issue today as it was in the past.

Compare two statements in question:

1. God created people He did not love.
2. God created Adam whom He loves.

From statement 1 it can be argued that God is the author of evil.
From statement 2 it cannot be argued that God is the author of evil.
NB the word create is the key word.

author: originator, (The OED gives four basic meanings: (i) “a person who originates or gives existence to anything. . .)

The implication from Gen1:31 is this that God loved Adam whom He created and since Adam was without sin (traditional Christian position) it follows that God is not the author of evil.

If it is argued that God created evil - that God is the author of evil then you have something to argue against.

blessings: stranger

 

[stovebolts]

Well JM,
I checked out those two pages you posted (had to strip mine the site to find them since the links didn’t come across), printed them and read them. Still have to study them, so I’ll get back with you when I’ve delved a bit deeper.
I also did a search on what is known as the covenant of works. I’ll have to say after doing some research on this covenant of works, I now see why some see works as some evil word… It’s kind of sad when there are two different views that are so extremely opposed to one another. Ohh well. Nothing new under the sun huh?

Going back to John Gill, it appears that he is attempting a theology from above. It’s not that I don’t appreciate any theology from above, but I simply lean more towards what I consider a more concrete theology from below viewed through a historical and canonical lens. In short, I find theologians such as Brueggermann, Kaiser, Gerstenberger (well, almost Gerstenberger lol) and Paul House inquisitive, captivating and informative. I realize that these are all OT theologians for the most part, but I believe we as Christians often overlook the true value that lies within the OT. Enough said…

Mr. Red Beetle,
It is unfortunate that you missed my earlier, opening statement,

“While admit ably, I struggle with the whole concept of Free Will, or lack thereof, I must say that it may very well be due to my current understanding of election. Here is my conundrum.â€Â

I’ve made a point, being the uneducated simple laymen that I am; to stay out of Apologetics unless I am very sure of myself in a particular area. As I clearly stated, I wrestle with the issue. That is not to say that I am ignorant to it, but I am simply not knowledgeable in this area. Being you posted in General and not in Apologetics, I assumed my opening statement was pretty neutral an non offensive. It is not my job to prove that man has free will, nor is it my job to prove that man does not have free will. If I would have made either a positive or negative affirmation in regard to free will, then I can see where I would have had to defend my position. From where I stand, the scriptures will speak what they have to say, thus, there is simply nothing for me to prove either way lest my pride go before me.

When I read Acts 13:48, I view this in light that the gentiles were always destine to receive eternal life and that YHWH would, as promised in many OT passages, make himself known to the Gentiles. It appears to me that the Jews believed that since they were in possession of the Law, they held the keys to salvation. This simply was not entirely true as was this supposed covenant of Works ideology.

Now, I realize that you probably won’t go outside the cannon, but I was reading Clement of Rome’s, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians [and Rome] (the second epistle is a fake, thus, there is really only one letter) and I noticed that he repeatedly uses the word Elect. Here’s an excerpt that really caught my eye.

2:3 And ye, being filled with a holy desire, with excellent zeal and pious confidence, stretched out your arms to Almighty God, beseeching him to be merciful unto you, if ye had in anything unwillingly done amiss. 2:4 Ye contended day and night for the whole brotherhood, that in his mercy and good pleasure the number of his elect might be saved.

I’ll download and burn your lecture to cd and listen to it tonight on my way home and get back with you later on it.
Cheers,

Jeff

 

[JM]

2 Peter 3
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This is one of the "big 3" often sited, with the claim that God is trying (but not able) to save all men, but this passage isn’t speaking of salvation it's speaking of bring men to repentance (v. 10 the day of the Lord is in view). Many assume that ‘us-ward’ includes the world and this idea is based upon presuppositions about salvation and God in general. This is natural, but we need to 'think God's thoughts after Him' as we conform to the word of God. 'us ward' means towards you, the reader and believer.

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:"

Peter is speaking to those who have ‘obtained’ the gift of God already, this epistle is not written to all mankind but to the saved, this is a pastoral letter. The context then should be viewed in light of the audience to whom the epistle is written. As the Geneva Bible states, “A reason why the last day does not come too soon, because God patiently waits until all the elect are brought to repentance, that none of them may perish.â€Â

Commentary:
his promise  which the scoffers cavil at. 2Pe_3:4, “Where is the promise?†It shall be surely fulfilled ââ¬Å“according to His promise†(2Pe_3:13).

~JM~

 

[JM]

Hi JM,

The essence of the argument is this: Did God create 'evil'? Like most discussions it has historical roots but my focus is on what is said on this forum. It is a common charge to attribute the original of evil to God - it is as much an apologetic issue today as it was in the past.

Compare two statements in question:

1. God created people He did not love.
2. God created Adam whom He loves.

From statement 1 it can be argued that God is the author of evil.
From statement 2 it cannot be argued that God is the author of evil.
NB the word create is the key word.

author: originator, (The OED gives four basic meanings: (i) “a person who originates or gives existence to anything. . .)

The implication from Gen1:31 is this that God loved Adam whom He created and since Adam was without sin (traditional Christian position) it follows that God is not the author of evil.

If it is argued that God created evil - that God is the author of evil then you have something to argue against.

blessings: stranger

Stranger, please define “evil†so that we can discuss it from a common meaning. For instance, is “evil†created?

 

[JM]

Well JM,
I checked out those two pages you posted (had to strip mine the site to find them since the links didn’t come across), printed them and read them. Still have to study them, so I’ll get back with you when I’ve delved a bit deeper.
I also did a search on what is known as the covenant of works. I’ll have to say after doing some research on this covenant of works, I now see why some see works as some evil word… It’s kind of sad when there are two different views that are so extremely opposed to one another. Ohh well. Nothing new under the sun huh?

Going back to John Gill, it appears that he is attempting a theology from above. It’s not that I don’t appreciate any theology from above, but I simply lean more towards what I consider a more concrete theology from below viewed through a historical and canonical lens. In short, I find theologians such as Brueggermann, Kaiser, Gerstenberger (well, almost Gerstenberger lol) and Paul House inquisitive, captivating and informative. I realize that these are all OT theologians for the most part, but I believe we as Christians often overlook the true value that lies within the OT. Enough said…

Ok, I'll bit. How would you describe the agreement between God and Adam in the garden of Eden? Wouldn't it be a covenant or works?

The Covenant of Works was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who ultimately represented all mankind in a covenantal sense. (Romans 5:12-21) It promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam and all mankind in Adam failed to live as God intended and stood condemned. Adam disobeyed God and broke the covenant, and so the Covenant of Grace was made between God and all of mankind.

~JM~

 

[Guest]

RED BEETLE wrote:
I am not interested in secular reasoning apart from Scripture. I am arguing from Scripture Alone. Any argument not made from Scripture is simply not acceptable in this debate.

Drew's Response:

This is simply not possible. Your very arguments are based on "secular reasoning" when you appeal to terms like "general premise" and "syllogisms". etc. God has put the world together in such a way that we effectively have no choice but to deploy "secular reasoning" principles (e.g. notions of coherence, necessity, sufficiency, contradiction, etc.) in figuring out what the Scripture mean.

Drew you fail to realize that the laws of logic are deducible from Scripture.
You need to study Gordon H. Clark. Christ, in John 1:1 is called the logos, that is, the logic of God. God is logical not insane. Therefore, deductive logic has an authoritative basis within the Scripture because God thinks logically, but using the laws of logic apart from Scripture, as you admit to doing, has no authoritative basis. Your epistemology, whatever that may be, would probably not be able to stand up to the most basis criticism of skeptics like Hume.




RED BEETLE wrote:
I will not let you assume the Bible teaches "free" will. You, like Christian Soldier, will need to first demonstrate that the Bible teaches "free" will, before you argue the "notion that a sufficiently complex and powerful God can indeed fulfill his purposes even with certain variables (e.g. man's will) not fully under His control."

Again, not true. I am under no such obligation. I am not the one who made an argument. I claim that your general premise is ambigious and intend to provide a plausible alternate interpreation that causes your conclusion to not be justified. Establishing that "a sufficiently complex and powerful God can indeed fulfill his purposes even with certain variables (e.g. man's will) not fully under His control." is a legitmate goal to establish the plausibility of my alternate reading of your general premise. And I am only obliged to show the plausibility of a reading of premise 1 that does not support your argument. I am not obliged to provide a positive argument for free will.

Here you admit that Scripture is not your only authority in matters of truth and practice. Your disagreement with me is first that of epistemology, not whether the Bible teaches that man's will is determined by God.

Your pagan views of what you call god is of no matter to me. Fact is, no one can possibly know what you even mean when you use the terms 'god', 'man', and 'will' since you refuse to back up your notions with any Scripture. I showed plainly from the Bible that my interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 is Scriptural. To refuse my interpretation requires a counter demonstration from Scripture. Before any debate can take place there must be a common acceptance of specific terms. Scripture Alone is my basis for argument, you have no basis for any argument.

Thank you for posting, but if you do not hold to Sola Scriptura, then you have nothing meaningful to say here.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Drew wrote:

But I think you read too much into Matt 10:24 when you seem to argue that God may not need to react to man's actions. How does a "need to react" make God any less the master, given that He always prevails. I think it actually makes him "more" of a master - it requires more power and sophistication to work out His will in the presence of creatures who can "interfere" with specific plans.

On the other hand, I do see where you are coming from. I just think the weight of the scriptures does suggest that God indeed does have to react to man's actions.

A good example which shows that Drew does not hold to Sola Scriptura. He openly disagrees with an interpretation of Scripture. Then, he makes an assertion with absolutely no Scripture to back it up. Christians consider the Bible, not Drew, to be the only inspired and authoritative source of truth.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

The stories are valuable mechanisms to explore the coherence of various ideas. You are, of course, under no obligation to respond to them.

The point is that your stories have no basis in Scripture, therefore they are worthless. We care what the Bible teaches, not what you dream up.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

The implication from Gen1:31 is this that God loved Adam whom He created.

Other boundaries are transgressed if arguments are not worded carefully, eg. making God the author of evil as believed by some.

Blessings: stranger

Of course God loved Adam, he was elected by God.

If you would like to bring up the notion that God is the "author of evil", then you should start by defining that phrase. But, it sounds like a good discussion to me.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

2 Peter 3
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The "any", in the verse above from 2 Peter 3:9, are the elect, as it is clear from the context of both books of Peter. Notice the "to us-ward", this limits the discussion to the elect, and does not include the reprobate class.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Stranger wrote:

1. God created people He did not love.
2. God created Adam whom He loves.

From statement 1 it can be argued that God is the author of evil.
From statement 2 it cannot be argued that God is the author of evil.
NB the word create is the key word.

I would like to see your definition of "author of evil". Do you mean that God can be charged with guilt? Or do you mean that God is simply the cause of whatever comes to pass. The two are quite different.

Statment 2, in most debates concerning theodicy, depends upon man having "free will", which no one has yet to prove.
Calvinism is the only system that correctly answers the agnostic / atheist objection to God from the fact that evil exists. It is plainly explained in the Book of Romans chapter 9.

God plainly states that He is the creator of evil (Isaiah 45:7).
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil."

You might also consider the verse in Amos 3:6.
"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

This is simply not possible. Your very arguments are based on "secular reasoning" when you appeal to terms like "general premise" and "syllogisms". etc. God has put the world together in such a way that we effectively have no choice but to deploy "secular reasoning" principles (e.g. notions of coherence, necessity, sufficiency, contradiction, etc.) in figuring out what the Scripture mean.

Drew you fail to realize that the laws of logic are deducible from Scripture.
You need to study Gordon H. Clark. Christ, in John 1:1 is called the logos, that is, the logic of God. God is logical not insane. Therefore, deductive logic has an authoritative basis within the Scripture because God thinks logically, but using the laws of logic apart from Scripture, as you admit to doing, has no authoritative basis. Your epistemology, whatever that may be, would probably not be able to stand up to the most basis criticism of skeptics like Hume

This response is highly misleading but admittedly quite clever. We both use the same principles of logic. Red Beetle is trying to create the illusion that his use of the principles of logic have the stamp of scriptural approval while mine do not. I have no objection to the possibility that the laws of logic are deducible from the Scriptures and that my own intellectual development has been informed by this. It is not a question that I have contemplated. If Red Beetle thinks that the correctness of his system of logic is superior to the one that I use (whose specific origin I can only guess is informed by a combination of scriptural education, "secular" studies", and good old fashioned experience), let him demonstrate it in this forum.

 

[WiLdAtHeArT]

logos, that is, the logic of God

Why isn't the word translated as 'logic', then? I think there is a reason most scholars translate 'logos' as 'Word'. I believe that you mislead people by using various leaps of translation on which to base an entire theology.

I think, though, that God is logical above and beyond any of our understanding. Our logic is muddled with various influences like sin, emotions, experiences, deception, chocolate, and cute puppies, just to name a few.

 

[Drew]

Again, not true. I am under no such obligation. I am not the one who made an argument. I claim that your general premise is ambigious and intend to provide a plausible alternate interpreation that causes your conclusion to not be justified. Establishing that "a sufficiently complex and powerful God can indeed fulfill his purposes even with certain variables (e.g. man's will) not fully under His control." is a legitmate goal to establish the plausibility of my alternate reading of your general premise. And I am only obliged to show the plausibility of a reading of premise 1 that does not support your argument. I am not obliged to provide a positive argument for free will.

Here you admit that Scripture is not your only authority in matters of truth and practice. Your disagreement with me is first that of epistemology, not whether the Bible teaches that man's will is determined by God.

There is, of course, no statement or implication to the effect that "Scripture is not my only authority" in the quoted material above. It is interesting that Red Beetle has not countered what I actually argued - namely that he has illicitly shifted the responsibility for a Biblical proof to me when all I have done is to question the validity of an argument that he put forth.

Imagine if Red Beetle put forth a "proof", say, that the number of prime numbers is finite. Imagine that I then point out a weakness in his argument - perhaps one of his premises is faulty. Does my objection lose its force if I cannot prove that the number of primes is in fact infinite? Of course not. Red Beetle cannot shift responsibility for his suspect argument that God "works" Man's will by insisting that I prove that man has "free will".

Your pagan views of what you call god is of no matter to me. Fact is, no one can possibly know what you even mean when you use the terms 'god', 'man', and 'will' since you refuse to back up your notions with any Scripture.

The fact that I did not use Scripture is of no consequence to the particular matter at issue. I pointed out a flaw in your argument by applying principles of sound and reasonable argument. If you wish to attack the specific content of my counterarguments, then please do so. But do not expect the readers to fall for the tired "he is not using scripture" argument. And please, have a little respect for the readers - the use of rhetorical devices, such as implying that I am a pagan, does not reflect well on your position.

The bottom line is that I have every right to expose a possible flaw of logic in your argument without being expected to produce a lengthy tome explaining how my principles of logic are grounded in the Scriptures. Nor am I obliged to provide Biblical support for the free will position. That might be for another day.

Thank you for posting, but if you do not hold to Sola Scriptura, then you have nothing meaningful to say here

I hope that the readers of this forum will judge the content of my arguments and decide for themselves whether my contributions have merit.

 

[JM]

Drew wrote:
This is simply not possible. Your very arguments are based on "secular reasoning" when you appeal to terms like "general premise" and "syllogisms". etc. God has put the world together in such a way that we effectively have no choice but to deploy "secular reasoning" principles (e.g. notions of coherence, necessity, sufficiency, contradiction, etc.) in figuring out what the Scripture mean.

RED BEETLE wrote:
Drew you fail to realize that the laws of logic are deducible from Scripture.
You need to study Gordon H. Clark. Christ, in John 1:1 is called the logos, that is, the logic of God. God is logical not insane. Therefore, deductive logic has an authoritative basis within the Scripture because God thinks logically, but using the laws of logic apart from Scripture, as you admit to doing, has no authoritative basis. Your epistemology, whatever that may be, would probably not be able to stand up to the most basis criticism of skeptics like Hume.
==================================================

R. L. Dabney shed some light on what is meant by "impossibility of the contrary" when he wrote: "A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true. (Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8[1])."

Cornelius Van Til likewise wrote: "It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. (A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969], p. 204)."

================================================

Red doesn't have to prove Drew is wrong because all people use logic, Drew is the one being misleading. Red has shown the inconsistency of Drew's view with Scripture asking only that Drew prove his view as being more consistent then his [RED's] with Scripture.

Where's the Scripture Drew?

~JM~