A one-sided argument

Bolton, England, trekearth.com

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

One-sided argument

Many decisions persons may weigh in have advantages and disadvantages. The fallacy of one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of a case is taken into consideration. (158).

Pros and cons should be evaluated in order to make judgements based on the balance. (158-159). This fallacy can err on only counting the advantages or disadvantages in regard to an issue. Relevant material is omitted from arguments in order to achieve a one-sided argument. (159). This entry is quite similar to the previous entry I reviewed from Pirie: Omitting the benefit.

Providing two or more sides on an argument and supporting theology and philosophy with methodology was very much emphasized to me within my British academic studies at the University of Wales.

Besides this approach providing more potential objectivity, at least, in the evaluation if arguments; it also disciplines the academic mind to reasonably consider alternative views. This is an approach which in theory should make an academic less biased and partisan, but unfortunately at times within academia, supposed objectivity and reason can be limited to within a school of thought and its worldview.

This occurred when I attended the University of Manchester as my kind tutor was away for the year. My developing Reformed views on theodicy were deemed academically unacceptable by the temporary tutors. Instead, I was to embrace secular perspectives in regard to theodicy.

I was to embrace, one-sided  premises and conclusions determined by the academy. Thankfully, the University of Wales, equally prestigious in the fields of Theology and Philosophy of Religion, provided more academic freedom.

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

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

That idea would go over like an atomic bomb: Omitting the benefit

That idea would go over like an atomic bomb: Omitting the benefit

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Continuation of the entry by entry review of the Pirie text, edited for an article presentation on academia.edu on December 3, 2022.

Omitting the benefit

When evaluating the benefits of an activity, both the good and bad consequence, should be considered. (157).

If each may exist.

A surprisingly (157) common fallacy consists of omitting the benefits produced by an activity or proposal and counting only the adverse consequences. (157).

The author's expertise on fallacies is abundant. But within western society, it is no surprise to me that many omit the benefits of views found disagreeable.

Pirie states that for example, many people have reasons for drinking, smoking and eating questionable foods. (158). The reasons for these should be addressed by campaigns that oppose. (158).

Agreed. This would be an attempt at presenting objectively reasoned premises and conclusions for and against certain concepts, philosophy, beliefs and activities. As opposed to rather emotionally held to premises and conclusions.

Pirie example:

'We should ban mountaineering because it is too dangerous. Several people are killed or injured doing it every year.' (157).

That idea would go over like an atomic bomb, in many areas, including in British Columbia where I was born and have lived most of life.

A potential upside to the downside described is the exercise and health benefits that occur when mountaineering.

My example

Radical liberal secularist in the western world

'The government should ban Christian parents from teaching their children the Bible, because it
brainwashes these children to believe in a God that is not empirically verifiable.'

God by nature, being infinite, non-material, spirit, the first cause, existed eternally prior to finite matter and energy (In physics, the ability to do work). God cannot be scientifically measured by material means. To insist that God must be empirically provable is a philosophical error and risks scientism.

Scientism

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344). From Oxford Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).

It may be considered pejorative when used by critics, from a secular British perspective, but there is significant accuracy to this term. A scientism approach omits and ignores as beneficial the non-empirical, scientifically speaking, premises and conclusions that work as evidences for God with historical, biblical revelation, such as Genesis 1-3 and the creation description (God as spirit, John 4: 24 for example). However, the historical characters, for example, within the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are empirically documented.

An approach using scientism also ignores philosophical support within philosophy of religion for theism that would parallel theological, biblical concepts in regard to God. Notably, first-cause.

If such supports for the idea of the biblical God were not omitted as non-beneficial, it would then clearly be philosophically quite reasonable for Christian parents to teach their children the Bible.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

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

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

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

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Additional on December 3 2022

Big Think: December 9, 2020 

The author is Adam Frank

Cited 

'What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?'

'Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy.' 

Agreed.

Cited

'And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.' 

It never was...

Cited

'Science and Scientism are not the same. You can deeply value the former while rejecting the latter. Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science is a method for asking questions about the world. Scientism is just one philosophy among many about the relationship between human beings and their experiences.'

Scientism definitely has worldview and philosophy aspects to it.

Cited 

'The folly of scientism'

'Now I am a passionate scientist who is passionate about science, but I also think scientism is a huge mistake. The most important reason it is a mistake is because it is confused about what it’s defending. Without doubt, science is unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.'

Every academic discipline needs to be handled with objectivity. Scientism risks subjectively dismissing non-scientific academic disciplines.

Cited 

'There are in fact many philosophical positions — many kinds of metaphysics — that you can adopt about reality and science depending on your inclinations. The good ones illuminate critical aspects of what is happening as human beings collectively go about trying to make sense of their experiences. Scientism claims to be the only philosophy that can speak for science, but that is simply not the case. There are lots of philosophies of science out there.' 

Agreed. A philosophy of science, does not have to embrace any kind of scientism.

Big Think: Adam Frank Astrophysicist

Cited

'Adam Frank is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and a leading expert on the final stages of evolution for stars like the sun. Frank's computational research group at the University of Rochester has developed advanced supercomputer tools for studying how stars form and how they die.'

Fifty million cannot be wrong?

 

RCA: Mr. Walter Thomas Franklin, my friendly neighbour, agrees. As does his Father..

Fifty million cannot be wrong?

Saturday, June 24, 2017 article, edited and revised for an entry on academia.edu.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

A previous entry with a connected fallacy

Ad populam May 12 2016

Logically fallacious

Cited 

'Appeal to Popularity argumentum ad numeram (also see: appeal to common belief) 

Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.'

This fallacy is related

Numeram, argumentum ad

This is a truth in numbers, fallacy.

This fallacy assumes greater numbers supporting premises and conclusions make arguments true. (154).

Supposedly, greater popularity via greater numbers equals truth.

'Fifty million Frenchman can't be wrong! (154).

Pirie from England, kindly points out that often in history, the French have been in error. (154).

The rightness or wrongness of a contention is not assisted or hindered by the numbers in support. (155). Received wisdom is not to be confused with factual knowledge. (155). In other words, perceived cultural and societal wisdom and common sense is not to be confused with actual, factual, knowledge.

This fallacy can be used by the 'mob orator'. (156). A promoter could state:

'50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong'.

The popularity of Elvis at that time simply meant he was popular. As Pirie noted the rightness and wrongness of a contention, would not assist this assertion. Truth is a product of correctly reasoned out premises and conclusions to form sound arguments.

Within my Reformed, Christian, worldview, theologically, as there is universal sinful human nature and sinful choices (John 1-3, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, 1 John) this leads to ultimate human judgement for that sin.

Revelation 20:15 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 And if [a]anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Footnotes:

Revelation 20:15 Lit anyone was

Many within scholarship view this a 'figurative literal' as opposed to a 'plain literal' fire. It is likely, symbolic fire. From Mounce: This may symbolize the effects of sin and wickedness in humanity. (367). But regardless, Revelation is describing literal and true, eschatological (last things), everlasting punishment. for universal humanity that in nature and choice, embraces, in great numbers, a rejection of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I take no pleasure in this as in Christ, I too am guilty, but am saved by grace through faith for good works, not by good works (Ephesians 1-2).

A hell concept is often offensive to the non-Christian and the secular mind. For clarity, this has nothing to do with a dislike of non-Christians. It has nothing to do with bigotry. This hell theology is an attempt at an accurate, contextual report of historical, biblical, scripture. Consider from a non-Christian perspective, if the sin concept is rejected. that certainly humanity is imperfect.

God is infinite, eternal and perfectly holy, and finite imperfection is not acceptable for the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation). I reason that a deistic, theistic, non-biblical God would also be infinitely good; in contrast, evil being the finite privation of good which God willingly would allow in creation.

Humanity would not be acceptable to such a God. The human being as is, is not acceptable to the biblical God for everlasting life, and must be changed to finite perfection. (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation). This through the atonement and resurrection of Christ being applied to believers.

With either biblical Christianity or a deism/theism, fatal signs are that God, typically and universally does not directly communicate (people can pray, but God does not talk with humanity, 'face to face') with humanity and that we exist in a reality leading to death.

This reasonably kills speculative, sentimental theology.

In the western world, the biblical God is not very popular at present. More in numbers do not claim a distinct and decisive Christian faith and philosophy. The popularity of the biblical God is irrelevant, rather the biblical God is established through reasoned argumentation, or is not. Frankly, and not to be an intellectual snob, we all have our intellectual weaknesses; but the majority of the population in the western world has so little training and experience in theology and philosophy, that it is far too tempting for most to rely on popular thinking than to prayerfully research and reason these issues out.
---

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

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

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books.

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

GREER, ROWAN A. (1996) ‘Augustine’s Transformation of The Free Will Defence’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 13, Number 4, October, pp. 471-486. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

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

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HOCKING, DAVID (2014) The Book of Revelation, Tustin, California, HFT Publications.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan. 

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms  (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

V is for victory, but not always

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Some key symbols from the textbook:
≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ =There exists
∃! =There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
 < = Is included

Joint Inclusion or Disjunction of Classes

Two classes may be related to a third class. Taking the two classes, class A and class B, together in one class, this class contains everything that belongs to class A or class B, therefore, it is called the sum of class A and class B. (139). This would be expressed like a mathematical term, as A + B. (140).

Langer introduces the symbolic symbol V, a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives). (140).

Symbolic logic

Cited

'The statement A ∨ B is true if A or B (or both) are true; if both are false, the statement is false.'

The author writes the example:

'(x ε A) V (x ε B)' (140).

X is A is true as is X is B

Based on Langer's example

(x) : (x ε A) V (x ε B) ⊃ (x ε A + B)

X equals X is A is true as is X is B is the same as X is A plus B

Skylighters.org

Shiny new fallacy?

Yesterday

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

It is fallacious to assume age is a guide to correctness. (152).

It is fallacious to assume that something new is more correct. (152).

Pirie documents this second fallacy as

Novitam, argumentum ad

For the same of promotion, yet accuracy, I suggest for this entry

Shiny new fallacy?

Logically fallacious

Cited

'Appeal to Novelty

argumentum ad novitatem (also known as: appeal to the new, ad novitam [sometimes spelled as]) 

Description: Claiming that something that is new or modern is superior to the status quo, based exclusively on its newness.

Logical Form: X has been around for years now. Y is new. Therefore, Y is better than X.'

Related

Logically fallacious

'Appeal to Tradition argumentum ad antiquitatem (also known as: appeal to common practice, appeal to antiquity, appeal to traditional wisdom, proof from tradition, appeal to past practice, traditional wisdom)."

Therefore, as examples, considering these two fallacies

It is fallacious to assume progressive ideas are by definition, superior to conservative ideas.

It is fallacious to assume conservative ideas are by definition, superior to progressive ideas.

Premises/propositions leading to conclusions should be evaluated on an individual basis, even while admitting propositions and conclusions are developed within a worldview. Progressive liberal ideas may be superior to conservative ideas, but ideas should not be assumed to be so without reason and evidence. Conservative ideas may be superior to progressive ideas, but ideas should not be assumed to be so without reason and evidence.

Pirie explains that these two fallacies can conflict. (154). An appeal to the new versus and appeal to the old. As noted this can take place in the form of progressive versus conservative ideas, but admittedly, theoretically, at times, progressive liberal approaches can embrace older ideas and conservatism can embrace newer ideas.

My shiny and new, American owned, made in China, Gerber hunting knife. My latest martial arts workout weapon. 

Infinite speed?

Facebook

A friend of mine sent me the video below in favour of young earth theory.

I am not a scientist, but I have as a theologian and philosopher, some considerations in regard to the presentation and the concepts of infinite and infinite speed.

 

Reasons To Believe By Dr. Jeff Zweerink May 1, 2012

Cited

'Young-earth (YE) and old-earth (OE) creationists disagree on a great number of scientific issues—most prominently the ages of the Earth and universe—but both groups generally agree on the astronomical distances measured with telescopes. The Sun sits just over eight light-minutes away, the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at 25,000 light-years, the Andromeda Galaxy around 2.5 million light-years, and the most distant quasars up to 13 billion light-years away. These distances pose no problems for inflationary, big bang models of the universe (consistent with an OE view), but the YE creationist models have a “distant starlight problem.” How do observers see such distant objects in a few-thousand-year-old universe?'

Cited

'Astronomer Jason Lisle,1 until recently at Answers in Genesis, has proposed a novel solution to the “distant starlight problem.” His article describing the model provides details,2 but here are the salient features of what he calls the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC).'

Cited

'3. Lisle adopts a different synchrony convention where light travels at infinite speed in one direction and half the speed of light on the return trip.

4. He also introduces a directional dependence such that light travels at infinite speed toward the Earth. Lisle then argues that the Genesis 1 creation account suggests that God used the ASC in His miraculous work during the creation week. For example, all the stars created on the fourth day would need to be visible from Earth’s surface in order to perform their function (to serve as signs for seasons––Gen. 1:14). Choosing the ASC would mean the light from these stars arrived instantaneously on day four.

Cited

'The pressing question becomes: which convention is the correct one to use? Without a doubt, the standard convention provides the easiest framework for calculating a sequential history of the events in the universe as well as for computing how to build particle accelerators, GPS systems, and many other technological instruments. Unfortunately, Lisle’s choice of conventions is untestable, as he acknowledges: The anisotropic synchrony convention is just that—a convention. It is not a scientific model; it does not make testable predictions.It is a convention of measurement and cannot be falsified any more than the metric system can be falsified.'

Cited

'Lisle’s addition of a directionality condition (item 4 above) may prove the most problematic aspect of the ASC. Although the synchrony convention is a genuine choice, the anisotropic nature of the ASC would produce observable consequences. The biggest consequence would be a detectable gravitational field (apart from the one caused by Earth’s mass) and scientists measure no such field.4'

Infinite speed?

'Lisle adopts a different synchrony convention where light travels at infinite speed in one direction and half the speed of light on the return trip.'

Oxford defines light as 'The form of electromagnetic radiation to which the human eye is sensitive and on which our visual awareness of the universe and its contents relies.' (476). Related to colour. (476).

The finite velocity of light was suspected many with experimentation earlier, but was not documented and established until 1676, when Ole Christensen Rømer, measured it. (476). Further progress was made over the years through scientific research, including the development of wave theory. (476-477). Albert Einstein and others worked in the field and there theory developed and evolved into a theory of 'quantum theory and wave mechanics.' (477). Quantum being the minimum amount by which certain properties, such as energy and angular momentum of a system can change. (677).

Based on academic science, light is documented as having a finite velocity.

However, based on Lisle's theory, in fairness, theologically, I reason that theoretically, God could supernaturally, instantaneously illuminate his creation. This view would be understood as supported by the particular interpretation of 'let there by light' from Genesis 1 as infinite and not finite light. It would be the supernatural appearance of light within the nature of the infinite, limitless God. But God could illuminate his creation with created, finite light and it would be also supported by 'let there be light.'

Cited

'Choosing the ASC would mean the light from these stars arrived instantaneously on day four.'

I do not reason the infinite arrives, in the sense of infinite light would not traverse time and space, it simply is and simply would be. It would appear within the finite universe. If this was God as light.

The concept of infinite speed seems problematic. Speed by definition is a rate, it is finite. Light from God that arrives, seems more likely created finite light.

Scientifically, measurable light is not supernatural and is not infinite. Scientifically, philosophically and theologically, concepts of light travelling at infinite speed seem problematic as mentioned, and are also not measurable by finite standards. Finitely created light and the speed of that light would not be measurable by any type of infinitude, but instead would be measured by finitude.

Within my writings I have reasoned philosophically,  theologically and biblically that only God is limitless. Only God is eternal and has both no beginning and no end. Only God is infinite. Anything within created matter is finite. Anything created is finite. This includes time and space.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Hypothetical v Theoretical

Hypothetical v Theoretical

I have pondered on the proper usage of each...

English Stack Exchange

Cited

'In 'hypothetically speaking', the implication is 'This is not going to happen, though. It's only conjectural, suppose....

On the other hand, in 'theoretically speaking', the meaning is just that, you are backed by theory; you are speaking with reference to theoretical concepts; also, 'We are only dealing with the theory here, don't ask if it has any practical use, that's not in scope.''

Oxford

Hypothetical  (adjective) and Hypothetically (adverb)

'2 supposed but not necessarily real or true.' (670).

This definition fits a philosophical, propositional context.

Theoretical (adjective) and Theoretically (adverb)

'1 concerned with knowledge but not with practical application, 2 based on theory rather than experience or practice.' (1446).

This definitions fits a philosophical, propositional context.

My examples

Hypothetically, if Montreal built a new NHL style arena and was awarded a National Hockey League franchise, based on current Forbes franchise value rankings, the likely Montreal Maroons (version 2) would be one of the most valuable clubs in the League.
---

In the media, the Montreal Maroons as a concept is rarely mentioned and is hypothetical. There is no real arena, nor any real interest by the League to pursue this idea. The concept is mainly at the limited fan interest level, at present.

In contrast

With the new Videotron Centre in Quebec City, the National Hockey League has stated it will 'defer' the Quebec City expansion bid to a later date. Theoretically, Quebec City has an NHL style arena and is being considered for an actual, real, franchise which will be known as Quebec Nordiques (version 2). This franchise in theory may happen, but there is no practical application. Quebec City does not have a club, and neither does Montreal have a second club.

It could be stated, admitting these definitions overlap:

The Montreal Maroons (version 2) are a hypothetical concept.

The Quebec Nordiques (version 2) are a theoretical concept.

The difference being that at this point there is theory, based in fact, supporting Quebec City and not Montreal.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

NHL: Mysteriously this image appears on an NHL.com video, minus the red arrow and question mark. Quebec City is highlighted for some reason. The video was produced by Sportsnet, a League broadcast partner in Canada. Is this a bizarre joke or mistake? Or is this a futuristic League map, accidentally leaked?

Is classical music dead?

Deranged downtown Vancouver taxi driver, shows his cow

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Non-anticipation

This fallacy supposes that everything worth doing or saying has already been said or done. A new idea is rejected on the grounds that if it was good, it would have already been invented. (150).

Pirie writes that all types of progress has been made scientifically and socially, therefore this fallacy is unwarranted. (150). It cannot be presumed that our ancestors would have had all the ideas to progress. (150). The author points out that past generations did not know about the dangers of tobacco, as we do today. It would be fallacious to assume tobacco consumption was not harmful because past generations did not see it as such. (150).

My examples:

John Mclaughlin/Mahavishnu Orchestra and the late Allan Holdsworth, wrote and performed all the good jazz rock fusion in the 1970's and 1980's; therefore, no one should bother trying to write and perform that type of music in the 21st century. It would not be as good.

The great classical music was composed in the 18th century to early 20th century; therefore, no one should bother writing classical music today, it is dead. New classical music would not be as good.

The non-anticipation presents fallacy (fallacies) of presumption, assumption and lazy intellectual thinking.

Past documented, knowledge is available to the modern mind. Classical music and jazz rock fusion music could progress, at least in some ways, when past knowledge is intelligently combined with new ideas.

When considering bible doctrine and theology, it must be admitted that times have progressed since biblical eras. But God, as infinite and eternal, does not change in essence and nature. God's moral code for humanity, does not change. There is a progression from old covenant to new covenant, from Testament to Testament. But established New Testament doctrine and theology, understood in textual context, does not change, although it needs to be applied in modern contexts.

Is this nauseating?

Washington, DC

Is this nauseating?

Updated article for an entry on academia.edu on June 4, 2023

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The review of this philosophy text, continued.

Nauseam, argumentum ad

Simple repetition of a point of view does nothing to provide additional evidence or facts. (147).

My Mother in her earlier days, loved this approach...

'Yet it can erode the critical faculty'.' (147). Things are not more true because they are heard more often. (147).

Based on the author's example: (148).

I have told you three times...!!!

The fact is '...repetition adds nothing to logic.' (148). Fallaciously, psychological factors are appealed to as opposed to logic. (148). Emotion is favoured over reason. A subjective approach used over an objective approach.

Based on the author's example: (148).

To an RCMP officer:

It was not me!
I said, it was not me?
It was not me, for sure!

Out of interest, as with my last Langer, philosophical text review, where she uses socialism in an example, Pirie does here as well. He reasons that this fallacy could be presented with the terms 'Socialism means rule by the workers.' Pirie appears like me, to be of a conservative view. Perhaps in support of his suggestion, it could be stated that socialism exchanges one rule by elites for another rule by elites?

Here in Canada, being governed by the Conservative party is rule by a group of elites. I would reason that being governed by the New Democratic Party, would entail being ruled by another group of elites. Of course with present, media star, Prime Minister Trudeau and his followers of the Liberal Party. we are likely going to be ruled by the Liberal party elites for decades!

What is a reasonable, philosophical, political answer to being ruled by elites? Rule by the people through online referendums? Are enough people in the general public significantly educated with the issues to support reasonable views?

A theoretical referendum proposition:

Should Christian churches that support biblical standards on sexuality and marriage be made illegal in Canada?

This would be a proposition being presented to a Canadian public, largely not educated, within the disciplines of religious studies, philosophy, political science and constitutional law. The results could threaten religious liberty.

Pirie explains that 'political credos' are presented with the use of this fallacy. (148).

Wiktionary 

Cited: 

'Etymology 

Latin Noun argumentum ad nauseam (rhetoric) 

The false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people.'

A twisted crown of thorns.com:  I think not...

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. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

English socialists exist

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

I continue with the Langer, text review.

Some key symbols from the textbook:

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ =There exists
∃! =There exists
∴= Therefore
·= Therefore
 < = Is included
---

At times within symbolic logic, two classes might not be identical, and yet the classes overlap (138). There is at least one individual in class A that is a member of class B. (138).

If class A and class B were identical:

(x ε A) . (x ε B) (138).

X is Class A, therefore X is Class B.

Also:

(A x B  < A) . (A x B  < B)

Class A x Class B is included in Class A, therefore, Class A x Class B is included in Class B. (139).

A red apple belongs in the class of red things. (139). Below.

(x ε red thing) . (x ε apple) (139). Langer uses apple.

The defining function of two classes is placed into a class. (139).

But I can also observe using symbolic logic:

(x ε red thing) ˜ (x ε green apple)

A green apple does not belong in the class of a red thing.

Not all Englishmen (A) are socialists. (B). (139). Langer uses this example.

A ˜ B

Not all Englishmen are socialists. But there are English socialists that would be a subclass of both Englishmen and socialists. (139). The product of two classes producing English socialists. Note, female philosopher Langer uses the term Englishmen. This textbook was published in 1967, and originally 1953, and the English language has of course evolved in fifty years and previous.

I reason:

(∃! ES)

or

(∃! x ES)

There exists English socialists.

There exists English x socialists.

(A ˜ B) . (∃! A) . (∃! B) ⊨ (∃! ES).

Not all English are socialists, therefore the English exist, therefore socialists exist, this entails English socialists exist.

Very demotivational.com

Reaching Immigrants

Downtown Vancouver, last night: I did not attend here.

Reaching Immigrants

Last evening at a Christian event, an interesting perspective was provided by the speaker. Syrian refugees coming to this area could provide Metropolitan Vancouver, Christian churches with an opportunity to reach these new immigrants, largely from Islamic backgrounds, with the gospel message. Yes, in a minority of cases, some of these immigrants could be a security concern, but that issue is mainly the work of Canada's security services. My thought was that some Islamic, Syrian immigrants may be reached in dialogue with the gospel, after facing some very difficult and negative circumstances within Islamic society (s).

Of course from a biblical, Reformed perspective, no person is able to embrace the gospel unless this is first caused and willed by God. But a different and biblical view on theism, monotheism and the nature of God could be presented to Syrian immigrants.

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

This means as God chooses to regenerate a person he simultaneously persuades one to freely believe.[1] Murray states that regeneration is logically antecedent to any conscious response,[2] and I reason that God’s choice to commit the act of regeneration must be antecedent due to the corrupt and sinful nature of persons.[3] The work of salvation was confined to God’s part in the calling.[4] This does not prohibit God from causing a compatibilistic human choice within conversion at the moment that God’s initial eternal choice to regenerate[5] becomes a divine act of regeneration.[6] As persons were regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ.[7] I would view conversion as an aspect of regeneration, which is the beginning of the Christian experience.[8] Regeneration was to encompass the entire divine plan of recreation from the initial change in persons to the ultimate culmination of a new heaven and new earth.[9]

---

[1] This allows for a limited but significant human freedom within the salvation process that is not incompatibilism. Salvation remains alone a work of God.  Weber writes that God with his freedom effects both human freedom and human bondage as he reaches out to a saved person through the Word of God.  Weber (1955)(1981: 245).  This would be a work of the Spirit.

[2] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[3] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 168-169).

[4] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[5] As God is eternal this choice could be viewed as such. Humans of course are not eternal.

[6] Persons have via the Holy Spirit been molded and transformed in order to freely believe. Thiessen, an incompatibilist, states that in regeneration the human is passive and is active in conversion. Thiessen (1956: 367).  I agree concerning regeneration, and I can agree in regard to conversion, only if by active the human being is convinced freely via the Holy Spirit and is not assumed to have incompatibilist free will.

[7] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[8] Franke notes that the Scripture explains that the Holy Spirit continued to guide the earliest Christians.  Franke (2005: 132).  The Spirit continues to work in regenerated/converted believers that embrace the gospel.

[9] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.  

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.  

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.  

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.  

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

I pity the fool...

Memegenerator.net

Imgflip.com

I pity the fool...

Preface

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The review continues.

Misericordiam, argumentum ad

Quote

'When we turn to pity instead of reasoned discourse to support a particular contention, we commit the argumentum ad misercordiam. (145).

Lander

Quote

'...Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.'

Noted sources from Lander University:

Plato, Crito 45c-d, trans. Jowett.↩

Aristotle, Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric trans. Robert C. Bartlett (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), 6.↩

---

Based on Pirie's example (145). A fictional example:

In asking yourself if Chucky should be convicted by the Canadian government for tax evasion, ask yourself what it will mean for him to be locked in prison, a Mennonite, deprived of liberty, and turned into an outcast within western society.

Chucky pays his taxes, but the example stands.

Pirie writes that what is relevant is guilt or non-guilt, not the effects on the person charged. (145). The introduction of pity does nothing to prove an argument. (145). The author opines that this a fallacious approach used by many defence lawyers. (146). The use of the handkerchief is sometimes used to influence observers to provide someone in question with the benefit of the doubt. (146).

Interestingly, Pirie claims that Charles Dickens: 'A Christmas Carol', appeals to this fallacy. (147). The author explains Scrooge makes a decision contrary to economic reality. (147). I am not an expert on the book or related films. I have not read the text or seen a related film recently. I would state, that within my Christian worldview, I have no theoretical difficulty sharing some of my money and goods with the poor.

Oxford University Press

'Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) A fallacy committed when the arguer attempts to evoke pity from the audience and tries to use that pity to make the audience accept the conclusion.' 

HERRICK PAUL (2014) Think with Socrates: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

My example of argumentum ad misericordiam...

The local drug addicts on the street have limited mental capacity and therefore cannot be held legally, ethically and morally responsible for any acts committed.

---

1. Is all significant ethical and moral capacity diminished in every case?

2. Was all significant and moral capacity diminished before he/she became a drug addict, in every case?

3. If #1 is sometimes 'no', and #2 is sometimes 'no', significant legal, ethical and moral responsibility exists in some cases. 

(Legal responsibility should be considered, at least, dependent on the laws that exist, in my humble opinion)

From New Testament theology, significant human, legal, ethical and moral responsibility and accountability is answered with the gospel. Those regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) in Jesus Christ have sins covered through the applied atoning work of Christ on the cross, and death defeated through Christ's resurrection, also applied to believers.

Hebrews 2:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 Therefore, since the children share in [a]flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, Footnotes Hebrews 2:14 Lit blood and flesh

---

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

HERRICK PAUL (2014) Think with Socrates: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

June 8, 2017 posting, edited with additions on December 3, 2023 for an entry on academia.edu.

Does Islam hold to Jihad?

Yesterday: On a warm sunny day, Maple Ridge rivals California?

I am referencing some previous entries, as again, I do not believe in reinventing the wheel.

May 26, 2017

September 20, 2014

September 6, 2014

Methodology and academic worldview

I am not an Islamic scholar; my academic specialties (PhD, Wales) within a Reformed Christian worldview are theodicy, the problem of evil, free will, determinism and the nature of God. I am Reformed and evangelical. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist, but a moderate conservative, attempting to interpret the originally divinely inspired and inherent Scripture through copies and translations of Scripture in context, in regard to plain literal or figurative literal meanings.

I have made friends with persons of other worldviews, including Islam. Obviously, from my writings, I am opposed to radical Islam, and any violent, radical worldview. I certainly do not hold to Islam, in any form, as being essentially true as a religion and worldview. 

As a very brief, non-exhaustive, explanation, I reject Islam because it is chronologically later (claimed) revelation than the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. It is originally from Arabia, not Israel and Europe and not within the traditions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Islamic doctrine rejects essential New Testament doctrine, such the trinity and deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

In contrast, the new covenant of the New Testament replaces and amplifies the old covenant of the Hebrew Bible. If it replaced with outright contradiction, illogic, it would be void. The New Testament is viewed as progressive revelation from the Old Testament. The Bible is not 'flat', but neither would outright contradiction be intellectually tenable.

Yet, Islam, in part claims the divine validity of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, while denying and contradicting certain biblical essentials. This is fatal contradiction. The importance of this should not be overlooked. Being an Abrahamic, monotheistic faith in no way counters this fatal objection. The New Testament, for example, having thousands of manuscripts in whole or in part for support which would be contradicted outright by later Islamic rejection of the trinity and salvific work of Jesus Christ.

For me the popularity of Islam is irrelevant as a truth claim. I would place more credibility in a supposed, hypothetical, religious worldview which presented something new and denied the divine inspiration of the previous biblical revelation which it contradicts in regard to certain essential theology.

Does Islam hold to Jihad?

Today, the radical, militant Islamists that are very much opposed to toleration of others and democracy and have the theological concept of convert to Islam or die in regard to all other groups, including other Muslims that they find objectionable.

Other notable exceptions that would be opposed to toleration and democracy, not stating this is an exhaustive list, but these philosophical views are not prevalent in the West presently, would be those supporting Communism, certainly as in anything resembling that of the Marxist-Leninist, Soviet Union and those supporting Fascism as in anything resembling Nazism.

I use two world religions texts as sources:

Lewis M. Hopfe admits that one of the most controversial aspects of Islam is 'Jihad' (Holy War). Hopfe (1987: 419). Pagans he writes may have been forced to convert but Jews and Christians and others were free to worship and they chose. Hopfe (1987: 419). It is admitted by Hopfe that there is a Muslim doctrine that one must do battle for God. Hopfe (1987: 419).

This is contrasted by Christ as the Kingdom of God is not of this world.

New American Standard Bible

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18: 36). Instead of Kingdom of God is eventually established as in fully culminated in Revelation 21-22 by God, and not by the military acts of the Church, Christians, Jews or people of God.

The Holy Roman Empire and other European church-state Kingdoms and nations, would be politicized versions of Christianity which I would not consider primarily Biblically based.

In addition to attempt to force any type of conversion is to miss the point that God converts persons as in God chooses (Ephesians 1-2) and molds one for works by faith through grace through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ. One is born again by an act of God in John 3, not by an act of the sword.

Doubtless, there would be many documented cases found today where radical Islamists have attempted to coerce and force Christians, Jews and persons of all types of religions and views to their type of Islamic views. Some at the threat of death.

S.A. Nigosian states the goal of Jihad is not so much conversion but for Islam to gain 'political control over societies'. Nigosian (1994: 448). This is done in order to rule them under Islam. Nigosian (1994: 448).

Perhaps a more literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an and Islam embraces Jihad and Holy War, and the so-called 'religion of peace' is a watered-down, westernized version of Islam?

Perhaps western liberalized Islam in a sense, parallels western liberalized Christianity, which also tends to reinterpret the bible and New Testament within a religiously watered-down, modern, secular worldview?

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company. 

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

God does not want to save everyone?

Today

At the Northview Community Church, church plant, TriCity Church, one of the senior members mentioned a former Columbia Bible College, professor of mine.

For as long as I could reason out any theology, I have always had Reformed leanings, but this professor was the first professor to tell me (paraphrased) that God did not want to save everyone.

This was because although all persons are sinful by nature and choice (Romans), some by nature will never be acceptable to God for salvation. 

This senior church member pointed out that forms of hyper-Calvinism were in error and I agreed, stating that no persons are forced or coerced into the Kingdom of God, or forced or coerced to stay out of the Kingdom of God.

Philosophically and theologically, God is the first cause of all things, including human nature and will, thoughts and actions, but as secondary causes, humanity embraces what God has caused and willed. Depending on the divine cause, it is theoretically possible for a human being to embrace salvation or to embrace a rejection of salvation with what I call limited free will.

From my PhD

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

The incompatibilist believes that God cannot simultaneously influence human actions or force or coerce human beings to commit free actions. Feinberg (1994: 64). A person who holds to this type of view may place more emphasis on human free will decisions in regard to their own human suffering than would a compatibilist. The compatibilist or soft-determinist states although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596).

The incompatibilist may deny that God is causing particular suffering and would instead understand God as merely allowing it to occur. The compatibilist, on the other hand, may view God as directly willing evil and suffering for the greater good. Feinberg (1994: 64). Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61). And not merely allowing it to occur.

My compatibilist view is that it is indeed God’s choice alone to regenerate and therefore he alone is active in regeneration. Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). But simultaneously as a person is regenerated they believe in Christ. Therefore although I view God as the initiator of regeneration I reason that logically, in order to avoid any suggestion of force or coercion, as God regenerates the saved person, he or she simultaneously believes. There is ‘no compulsion of the will in regeneration.’ states Shedd. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136-137 Volume 2). Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

I would view conversion as taking place simultaneously with regeneration in a person, although again I state that God alone via the Holy Spirit causes the regeneration process. This means as God chooses to regenerate a person he simultaneously persuades one to freely believe. This allows for a limited but significant human freedom within the salvation process that is not incompatibilism.

Salvation remains alone a work of God. Weber writes that God with his freedom effects both human freedom and human bondage as he reaches out to a saved person through the Word of God. Weber (1955)(1981: 245). This would be a work of the Spirit. Murray states that regeneration is logically antecedent to any conscious response, Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172), and I reason that God’s choice to commit the act of regeneration must be antecedent due to the corrupt and sinful nature of persons. Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 168-169).

The work of salvation was confined to God’s part in the calling. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53). This does not prohibit God from causing a compatibilistic human choice within conversion at the moment that God’s initial eternal choice to regenerate becomes a divine act of regeneration. As persons were regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53). I would view conversion as an aspect of regeneration, which is the beginning of the Christian experience. Regeneration was to encompass the entire divine plan of recreation from the initial change in persons to the ultimate culmination of a new heaven and new earth. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

June 5, 2017

Divine regeneration leading to human belief, will include human repentance. But as the human nature is not completely transformed through resurrection, further repentance will also be achieved in the sanctification process.

In regard to 2 Peter 3, for example: Erickson opines:

Quote:

‘…God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet he apparently he does not actually will for us all to be saved, since not everyone is saved.’ (361).

Quote

‘We must distinguish between two different senses of God’s will, which we will refer to as God’s “wish” (will1) and God’s will (will2).’ (361).

Will1 is God’s general intention and Will2 is God’s specific intention.

Or it could be stated Will1=God’s perfect will and Will2=God’s permissible will.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.