New Martial Arts Equipment II

New Westminster-trekearth

Romans 13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 Every [a]person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except [b]from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore [c]whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for [d]good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

1 Peter 2:13-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent [a]by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For [b]such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and [c]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the [d]king.

Teleology

Costa Rica-Facebook

Teleology 

Teleology is a philosophical doctrine that all nature, 'or at least intentional agents, are goal-directed or functionally organised'. Hull (1996: 791). Plato suggested that the organised world/universe could be understood by comparing it to the behaviour of organised agents. Hull (1996: 791). This was known as 'external teleology'. Hull (1996: 791). Human beings could anticipate their future and plan accordingly. Hull (1996: 791).

Persons could calculate their own futures, so to speak.

Aristotle held to 'internal teleology' as in 'invested nature itself with goals'. Hull (1996: 791).

Each of these has their own final cause with the entities being constructed in a way that they tend to meet their directed goal. Hull (1996: 791).

Natural theology from theologians and philosophers took these concepts and supposed that the 'all-powerful God' was to fulfill his divine intentions. Hull (1996: 791).

Today philosophers may acknowledge apparent 'functional organization' in reality, but attempt to not reference the supernatural. Hull (1996: 791).

In other words to not reference, God or angelic beings. Naturalistic references and preferences would be used.

The views of Plato and Aristotle seem over-speculative, as in a finite being cannot safely and fully accurately predict the teleological pattern for self, or teleology for self because of lack of knowledge and because human beings are a secondary cause of thoughts, acts and actions. God would be the first and primary cause of all things being the infinite, first cause.

Only God could determine teleology in a full sense.

In regard to the related teleological argument, it is not the purpose of this article.

But when reviewing various arguments over the years under the headings of 'natural theology' some of the premises do at times seem to be over-speculative and views that could be easily endlessly challenged by theists and non-theists.

I therefore have not used them online or offline.

In other words, how provable are the premises and conclusions philosophically and theologically?

I instead do hold to the concept of first cause and reason it is consistent, although not identical to the concept of the creator Biblical God. First cause being primarily of philosophy and philosophy of religion; God, primarily being of theology and Bible.

As I studied Alvin C. Plantinga's book 'God, Freedom and Evil' very thoroughly for my theses work, there was a section on Natural Theology and he largely dismissed concepts related to the teleological argument as not having evidence with points 2 to 6. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 84). In contrast, R. Douglas Geivett was much more positive in regard to natural theology in 'Evil and the Evidence for God'. Plantinga's views and his dismissal assuredly largely debatable and controversial.

I lean more towards the views of Geivett in favour of at least some significant usefulness for natural theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion from a Christian perspective, but again acknowledge the speculative nature.

In the Scripture from the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament to Revelation it can be seen and understood though that God does have teleology in play. God has a teleological purpose in creating angelic beings, human beings, in the fall, problem evil, the gospel and in the restoration of the universe.

From a finite human perspective while admitting that all truth is God's truth, in regard to God, it is more reliable depending on revelation and reason than philosophical speculation and reason.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HULL, DAVID, L (1996) ‘Teleology’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

II John

Greece, Travel+Leisure-Facebook

The III John post has done better than most articles for pageviews but more importantly I am truly glad if it can assist others as well as provide learning for me.

As I noted on my Facebook page, perhaps that new page does help with marketing my blogs.

The Facebook page may be providing what some had hoped Twitter would provide for me.

Documentation from the previous III John post which is also relevant for this II John article: 

Authorship and Date

R.W. Orr holds to the once universal belief that I John, II John and III John and the works of the Gospel of John and Revelation, are written by the Apostle John. Orr (1986: 1571).

He reasons that the evidence from I-III is not based on a definite in-text claim but from 'the ancient testimony of the Church'. Orr (1986: 1571). There is another view that the books could be from a 'Johannine School' as presented by New Testament scholar, Donald Guthrie in New Testament Introduction of 1962. Orr (1986: 1571).

After the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, John departed for residence in Ephesus (1571); the island of Patmos being nearby. Orr (1986: 1571). Orr reasons these works were written within the about thirty years after the AD 70 events.

Robert Gundry, dates II John late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

Text

The letter is addressed to 'the chosen lady' (and her children). The views are expressed this could be a lady that hosted a house church or it could be the 'personification of a particular church'. Encountering (2013: 352).

Encountering notes that the message is the same regardless (352).

As in I John, the necessity of those in the Church walking in love is heavily emphasized. (352). This is a command Christians were to follow from the beginning (verses 5-6). This being entirely theologically and intellectually consistent with the Gospel of John, Chapter 15.

The author warns of those who deny both the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ (352) and that they were many. They are known as 'deceiver and antichrist' (352).

There were many in the New Testament era and many today. Some working within the Church I reason, some outside of the Church.

New American Standard Bible

II John

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 [a]Anyone who [b]goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

Those who reject the true Gospel are themselves to be rejected. (352).

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

I take this is a spiritual and theological separation.

This would not, in a 21st century context, exclude Christian evangelism and theological discussion to those with a false gospel but would exclude any private or public acceptance of that gospel from the Biblical Christian.

Orr writes that love will prevent schism in the Church, in verse 5 (1587), and that the Church fellowship will be maintained only if the original Biblical gospel is held (1587).

Heretical teachers existed that challenged the true Gospel (1587), verses 7-11.

So called 'advanced' (1587) teaching that leaves the original gospel is definitely of the antichrist and is 'antichristian' (1587).

Note that I will use philosophical theology to better assist in gospel understanding and in Biblical teaching. I reason that all truth is God's truth.

However, I will not leave the original gospel for any kind of so called advanced theology or philosophy. The idea being that as the Scripture is true religious history, revealed from God through persons, it reveals accurate theology. To seek understandings supposedly more advanced than this is in reality to ignore God and trust in finite, human speculation. Humanity also tainted by sin in nature and choice.

I am not opposed to philosophy of religion, obviously from my academic background and writings, but I use it with contextual Biblical Studies, not instead of.

Orr, notes, that fellowship and 'appearance of approval' of heresy is to be avoided in verses 10-11 (1587).

The author, states that he wishes to visit in person to further discuss matters.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

III John

Ionian Islands, Greece, Travel+Leisure, Facebook

Authorship and Date

R.W. Orr holds to the once universal belief that I John, II John and III John and the works of the Gospel of John and Revelation, are written by the Apostle John. Orr (1986: 1571).

He reasons that the evidence from I-III is not based on a definite in-text claim but from 'the ancient testimony of the Church'. Orr (1986: 1571).

There is another view that the books could be from a 'Johannine School' as presented by New Testament scholar, Donald Guthrie in New Testament Introduction of 1962. Orr (1986: 1571).

After the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, John departed for residence in Ephesus (1571); the island of Patmos being nearby. Orr (1986: 1571). Orr reasons these works were written within the about thirty years after the AD 70 events.

Robert Gundry, dates III John late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

Text

The letter is addressed to the elder Gaius (1571) and unlike II John this letter has an explicit recipient. Encountering (2013: 352).

Gaius is a convert of John and is commended for his faithful walk in the truth (3-4) and for his hospitality and support for Christian workers, missionaries and evangelists (8). Encountering (2013: 352).

He is contrasted, it appears with Diotrephes that is not willing to work with other Christian workers, 'gossips, rejects John's advice and expels from the church those who seek to help those laboring to further the true gospel (9-10)'. Encountering (2013: 352).

Apparently, this is a matter of ego, as he 'wants to be first' (352). Demetrius, on the other hand, has a good reputation (352).

The Biblical author states that further communication would be better served taking place in person.

III John is a short text and is often overlooked in importance as I result I would reason.

However, as far as application is concerned, theologically it can be seen that within the book there is perhaps the 'classic' if we take Christian history forward, example of a Christian worker that is true to the Scripture and Biblical authority. In the case of Gaius, who was taught personally by John.

There is also the example of Diotrephes that does not want to follow the teachings of the Apostle John. The Apostle with lofty credentials of being guided by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture and was a disciple of Jesus Christ, personally,

In the 21st century, this would be comparable to a Christian teacher, or pseudo-Christian teacher that for a variety of reasons, including ego, and perhaps wanting to be first, does not want to follow and teach Biblical, Scriptural teaching in context. This is not living and teaching under the submission of the Holy Spirit through the Bible.

It can be observed that III John, although a very short book, with a few audio listens, a read through and a few commentaries is quite theologically relevant today...

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Types Of Arguments

Biarritz, France-Travel+Leisure, Facebook

I still need to write a post while at or near water like that...

Thursday late night after work @ Safeway, a man behind me in line states: 'You look more like a banker than security'.

Types Of Arguments

I receive a newsletter from 'Reasons to Believe' which writes on science and Christian faith from an old earth/non-Darwinian perspective.

The short article 'How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument' is informative and interesting in comparison to The Elements of Reasoning text and other philosophical reading I used as source while writing arguments for my academic theses.

Kenneth Samples begins by stating that logic provides a checklist for thoughts and allows beliefs to be presented in a clear consistent manner.  Reasons (2014: 2).

The idea is that this assists in Christian faith and philosophy.

Reasonable.

Samples notes three approaches in logic:

Deduction, which establishes with certainty true conclusions

Induction, which establishes probably true conclusions

Abduction, which uses a set of established facts to infer the best explanation. Samples admits the abduction method is less well-known. Reasons (2014: 2).

Reviewing my 'Elements' text, it appears that abductive argumentation is not reviewed.

Inductive arguments are mentioned in the context of 'inductive generalization' where the inference is from some sample of a population to all or some percentage of its members. Elements (1997: 43).

The authors state that there is no 'simple answer' to support evidence for an inductive generalization but statistics are used to avoid 'gross errors'. Elements (1997: 43).

The authors then contrast induction from deduction.The two types of arguments are contrasted. Nondeductive are contrasted from deductive arguments and the terms inductive and induction are used for 'reasoning that generalizes from particular instances'. Elements (1997: 43).

Blackburn explains that inductive reasoning (and therefore the arguments I reason) would be used in any process of reasoning that takes place with empirical premises to empirical conclusions. Blackburn 1996: 192).

Deductive arguments are meant to be valid, that is their premises are meant to guarantee the conclusion. A nondeductive argument has premises with a 'likely' conclusion. Elements (1997: 33). This makes sense based on the empirical approach of inductive reasoning.

In contrast deductive arguments draw a conclusion from a set of premises. Blackburn (1996: 96).

This would be the approach used more within academic philosophy and theology.

Blackburn reviews abduction as the process by which evidence is gathered in order to reach a wider conclusion as inference as the best explanation. The results subject to rational evaluation. Blackburn (1996: 1).

Note:

Validity in deductive arguments is a technical term in logic. Elements (1997: 33).

If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The concept of true premises and false conclusion would be 'inconceivable in a valid argument'. Elements (1997: 33).

Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33).

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)

False premises and a false conclusion (FF)

True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These also have a true conclusion.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.