All truth is God's truth: I

All truth is God's truth: I

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

The Langer philosophy text review, continues.

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
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0= Null class
---

To combine various classes, that are not the same, through the use disjunction or conjunction, positive statements are required to connect membership. (145-146). Langer's example:

C = Cats D = Dogs

(x) : x ε C ⊃ (x ε -D) (146).

Variable equals variable is Cats, is the same as variable is not Dogs.

Philosopher Langer then once again discusses null class (147). Null class is the class which has incompatible properties (147). She suggests for example, a class of cats and not-cats.

x ε A . x ε -A  (147).

Variable is cats and variable is not cats. Based on Langer's writing, this is an incompatible premise.

0 represents null class.

(x ε 0) ⊃ (x ε A) . (x ε -A)

Null class is the same as the class of cats and the class of not-cats.

0 ⊨ A . -A

or

0 ⊨ C . -C

Null class entails the class of cats and the class of not-cats.

The null class 0 is included in each complementary pair (147). Every class has a complement and therefore every class includes null class 0. (147).

0 &lt; A

Null class is included in each class. (147).

Practical theology? This is technical philosophical material and even somewhat mathematical. It will help one to read academic materials within philosophy that use symbolic logic. But thinking in theological terms, I appreciate how each class has its complement, its opposite. Therefore, for example, a Christian has a non-Christian as opposite. Academically in both philosophy and theology logic and reason demands that opposites are complementary and cannot be intellectually spun to be otherwise based on worldviews that oppose biblical Christianity.

All truth is God's truth and here philosophy lends support.

Are you consecrated?/Luke 14

Sicily: Google+

God-willing, the Courson text, often in parallel with his online preaching will be my biblical and theological book review, now that I am finished with the Pirie, philosophical text.

I am thinking that some readers (and listeners) will be pleased that I will focus more on bible after approximately two years of the Pirie, fallacy, text. I need to focus on my marketable academic skills (regardless of work status) which will at times be under the umbrella of philosophy. My worldview does remain the same...

The Courson commentary is three volumes and will not be page by page as the Pirie and Langer reviews.

I will continue with the review of Langer, and symbolic logic.

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

In his recent online sermon on Luke 14-15-35, Pastor Courson emphatically stated (paraphrased) that there is a difference between being a saved, born-again Christian and an actual Christian disciple.

From his commentary:

'...there is a difference between being a Christian and being a disciple. 'Disciple means 'disciplined one'-one who is committed to the cause of the kingdom.' (371).

Luke 14: 27 is referenced:

Luke 14:27 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Luke 14:27 English Standard Version (ESV)

27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:27 King James Version (KJV) 27

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Pastor Courson, opines that to carry one's cross is not the typical modern, western sufferings such as a 'noisy neighbor' or 'arthritis'. (371). The way of the cross is to die to self, and to live in Christ, for others. (371). To put aside 'rights and privileges' (371) in order to see others do well. There is cost in discipleship. (371).

I can agree that a biblical, Christian, disciple, may find self at odds with society, certain family, friends, and co-workers. Certainly, many that claim the name of Jesus Christ for salvation today are not disciples.

Frankly, there is plenty of room for theological debate on whether or not a Christian that is not a disciple is actually regenerated (Titus 3) and born again (John 3). This has been a subject for research and analysis on my websites for years.

But Pastor Courson stated (paraphrased) in the recent sermon that salvation and justification was totally up to God, but being consecrated was up to us, as in those under the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ via the triune, biblical, God.

Browning explains that consecration is the act of separating persons from the profane and instead dedicating self to God. (76). It is to render things to God. (76).

The concept of consecration is associated with sanctification. The 'Pocket Dictionary' opines that sanctification is two-fold: One, it is an aspect of salvation via Jesus Christ. Two, those in Christ are to strive for holiness through the Holy Spirit. (105).

As sanctification is an aspect of New Testament salvation, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is applied to believers by grace through faith, not by works, but for good works (Ephesians 1-2). Within Reformed theology, by grace alone, through faith alone.

Titus 3:5-7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs [a]according to the hope of eternal life. 

This means salvific sanctification, biblically, is up to God alone, and not by human means. But, having listened to Pastor Courson since 1987, I reason he knows this theology as fact and accepts it.

The difference in view will be with the second proposed aspect of sanctification, which would include Pastor Courson's theology on consecration.

Today's typical evangelical, libertarian free will theology will assume this must be left entirely up to the persons in Christ, without simultaneous influence from God or any external force.

Within a Reformed theology and in my case, also via theistic philosophy within philosophy of religion, I reason that as God is infinite, eternal and omnipotent, God wills and causes all things as the primary cause, whether within his perfect will or his permissible will.

Within my Reformed view, God within either perfect or permissible will, would decide, noting Courson's theological idea, for my premise, which Christians would be disciples as opposed to saved believers only, and to what degree. But again, it is theologically debatable whether or not a true regenerated Christian could avoid being a disciple, at least of some sort.

Rest assured, limited free will does exist, within my Reformed theology:

Human beings embrace, as secondary cause (s) what God has caused and willed, or else this would be forced and/or coerced and would not include significant, human moral responsibility.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

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

In Three Minutes: Fascism (As opposed to conservative/conservatism)

Hoodie City, Wales

Via British philosophy texts, I provide academic definitions for fascism.

To be clear, I am a moderate conservative, Reformed, biblical Christian. I do not intellectually hold to or support any forms of fascism or communism. I never have and never will.

Fascism

Blackburn explains that from the Latin, this is fasces the bundle of rods carried before the Roman consuls as an insignia of authority. (136). This served as loose inspiration for the early 20th century political, military and government movements of Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Nazi Germany. (136).

Elements of fascism include nationalism, hostility to ideals of equality, hatred of minorities and hatred of degenerates, deviants, elitism, liberalism and freedom of expression. (136).

Fascism focuses on a cult-like leader and the destiny of race. It embraces political symbolism, uniforms, emblems. (136). Fascism is idealized that it must take place through political energy and struggle. (136).

Cambridge explains that in National Socialism, this form of fascism featured anti-antisemitism and was militarist. (629).

STERBA, JAMES P (1996) 'Political Philosophy" in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

In Three Minutes (A little over)

This audio/video took several takes, how much worse it would be if I had to be concerned with how I looked! However, yes, I can acknowledge there are many American conservatives, and American Christian conservatives that are opposed to aspects of illegal immigration and legal immigration. Many of these favour a southern wall. But, I do not reason that being opposed to legal immigration is a distinct conservative premise that can be connected to fascism. Remember there are many conservatives and conservative Christians that also live in Canada, Europe and elsewhere that hold to more moderate views and many American conservatives and American Christian conservatives do as well. Hatred of immigrants and minorities, for the most part, is not a conservative premise.

Audio/Video: New Logitech h340

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

The end of this text review.

Why wasn't it done already?

There has to be a first time for everything. It is a fallacy to claim that anything worthwhile has already been done. (214). It should not should be assumed that new ideas are always wacky (214) or just always wrong.

My example:

Person X: One day medical science will be able to repair amputated limbs.

Person Y:  I am against it. It is a bad idea, let God's will stand!

It could also be God's will for a certain person to have a repaired amputated limb (s).

Wishful thinking

This is when premises are accepted because one would like them to be true, rather than because reasonable premises and arguments have been presented in support of premises. (215). This fallacy is not concerned with whether premises and conclusions are true or false. (215).

Pirie mentions philosopher David Hume and his views on the subject of the afterlife. It is opined that it is wishful thinking to believe in the afterlife for deceased relatives and friends. (216). Pirie mentions that some philosophers, such as Hume view (viewed) the afterlife as an absurd notion. (216).

Connected to wishful thinking, I view sentimental theology as often absurd in regard to death and the afterlife. (See sentimental theology in archives).

The biblical, historically revealed, Christian theology in support of the afterlife idea is based on the promise of everlasting life in Jesus Christ. This through his atoning and resurrection work applied to believers via the triune God.

This everlasting life as in heaven, takes place in two stages. For those in Jesus Christ and the Hebrew Bible covenant, prior to the atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

Paradise (2 Corinthians 12, Philippians 1) for disembodied spirits. Then upon the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) within the culminated of Kingdom of God, the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 20-22).

This same biblical revelation reveals two stages of hell, also in an everlasting context. For those outside of Jesus Christ and the Hebrew Bible covenant, prior to the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

Hades for disembodied spirits (Luke 16) and then ultimately the lake of fire (Revelation 20) for those outside of Jesus Christ. Those in the lake of fire are presumed to be resurrected by many within scholarship.

As secondary support, within philosophy of religion, it can be reasoned there exists the necessary. Within theism, the necessary equates to first cause, which parallels the biblical and theological concept of God, that existed prior to any matter, or anything else for that matter (Genesis and Revelation). The first cause and as well the infinite, eternal author of the initial earthly life can offer everlasting life, if God so chooses and to whom he chooses.

This is not an absurd notion, when not left to wishful thinking and speculation alone.
---

It looks like my face is further thinning out with my fruit, vegetable, fish and natural peanut butter diet. If you do not mind me stating, my friends Darren and Kelly are correct, my arms do look muscular (Those 30 and 50 pound dumbbell curls and lifts.).

We must do something

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

'This fallacy consists in supposing that doing something ineffective is better than doing nothing at all' (213).

Based on the author's example:

Person A: I am getting a 'Love, Don't Hate' tat.

Person B: What difference will that make in the world?

Person A: I have to do something.

Person C:  Every little bit helps!

Random actions can be fallaciously justified by being connected to worthwhile causes. (213).

Actual human actions of love might make a difference in the world, where as a tattoo is not likely to.

Action is usually more useful and effective than symbolism.

This is unobtainable

Durham, 1997

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

Any argument has its limitations.

When accessing premises, any other option for premises comes from the 'available alternatives'. (208).

Therefore, when premises are criticized as imperfect and the alternatives are imperfect as well; those presenting alternatives as perfect, risk the fallacy of 'Unobtainable perfection'.

I am reasoning here that those presenting alternatives may not reason his/her premises are perfect, but rather are not applying a reasonable critique to these alternative views.

Based on the author's example (2008):

Nuclear power and energy should be made illegal as it is dangerous.

(Coal and hydro-electric, and oil are all dangerous too. A key question is which forms of energy production are more dangerous than others.)

In other words, it would be fallacious to rule out nuclear power and energy because it is imperfectly dangerous when this applies to all major energy sources. (2008). The status quo is imperfect and so will be alternatives. It is fallacious to claim there is a perfect solution to the status quo, at least in this present fallen realm.

I caution my politicized friends on the further left and further right that claim their side should rule and could create any type of utopia. Sinful human nature taints all political movements in this fallen realm.

Pirie points out two variants:

Claiming status quo premises do not go far enough. (209). The more drastic change may be (maybe not) better, but it too will be imperfect.

Seeking premises that are beyond a human ability to provide by those making the decisions. (210). So the impossible is suggested over the possible. The impossible but supposedly perfect suggestion (argument) is fallaciously preferred over imperfect, possible premises.

All horses are dogs?

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

The undistributed middle

All horses have four legs and all dogs have four legs, so all horses are dogs. (205).

Neither horses or dogs occupy the entire class of four-legged creatures. (205). See archives for my Langer, symbolic logic articles on 'class'.

Pirie:

'The 'middle' which carelessly omitted to get itself distributed is the term which appears in the first two lines of a three-line argument, but which disappears in the conclusion. The classic three-liner requires that this middle term must cover the whole of its class at least once. If not, it is undistributed.

All men are mammals. Some mammals are rabbits, therefore some men are rabbits.

(Even though the first two lines are correct, the middle term 'mammals' never once refers to all mammals. The middle term is thus undistributed and the deduction invalid. . . .

The standard three-liner (called a 'syllogism') works by relating one thing to another by means of a relationship they both have with a third. Only if at least one of those relationships applies to all the third thing, do we know that it is certain to include the other relationship.' (205-206).

Logically fallacious

'Fallacy of (the) Undistributed Middle (also known as: maldistributed middle, undistributed middle term)

Description:

A formal fallacy in a categorical syllogism where the middle term, or the term that does not appear in the conclusion, is not distributed to the other two terms.

Logical Form:

All A's are C's.
All B's are C's.
Therefore, all A’s are B’s.

Example #1:

All lions are animals.

All cats are animals.

Therefore, all lions are cats.'

To avoid a fallacy,  the first two premises must both relate to the third premise, the conclusion. (206). 

The classic syllogism

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

My recent example

What exists as necessary is good.

God exists as necessary.

Therefore, God is good.

Philippians: On suffering

From extra parking lot, near TriCity Church (Northview Community Church, church plant)

Philippians 1:21

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

To Live Is Christ

21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

Ralph P. Martin explains and provides interpretations:

Paul is stating that if he dies and glorifies God, it is the Apostle's gain. Martin (79). Paul reasons that besides his entrance to heaven and a heavenly reward, his martyrdom will produce promotion for the gospel message. (79).

In a sense, Paul will be closer to Jesus Christ and God, because the Apostle would exchange this temporal realm for the heavenly realm of Paradise, that Paul had experienced for a time, previously. (2 Corinthians 12: 4).

It honours Christ, to die for the triune God and the gospel, but Martin is correct, martyrdom serves as an historical promotion for the work of Jesus Christ.

Jon Courson opines in his Bible commentary series that the Apostle Paul will be happier to be with Jesus Christ, as will all saints when they die in Christ. Courson (1277). A different human focus, other than a gospel focus, will find a person less than ultimately satisfied. Courson (1277). I reason this supports the idea that the heavenly realm will be a more blessed state for those in Christ, than will be this present temporal, fallen, realm. Indeed the ending chapters of the Book of Revelation support this idea.

Hewlett reasons that Paul's life is bright (1443) because the gospel which saves people, is contrary to death. Being in a disembodied state, Paul will be conscious and free from sin and suffering. Hewlett (1443). If Paul remains he can still assist those in the Church in the earthly realm. Hewlett (1443).

Philippians 1:29-30

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

Martin opines that the type of suffering Paul is discussing is not a mark of divine punishment, but is a sign of divine favour. Martin (92). It is an aspect of divine grace to suffer obediently in Jesus Christ. Martin (92). Martin connects salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 1-2) as a gift from God and to endure the pain and suffering associated with this gift. Martin (92).

Of course Christians can suffer for disobedience (1 Peter 2, as example), but that is not the context here.

Courson writes that it is a privilege to suffer for Christ. Courson (1277). Obedience in suffering by the Church demonstrates allegiance to the Biblical God. Courson (1277).

Again, it could be viewed as promotion for the gospel, for the Church, that like the Apostle Paul, were willing to suffer for Jesus Christ and the gospel, even unto death.

Hewlett reasons it is a privilege to suffer for Christ. Hewlett (1444). This could be tied to the concept of honour in suffering and in martyrdom.

This privilege and honour is culminated at the judgement seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5). Honour will occur in judgement and in the enhanced, everlasting blessings for citizens within the Kingdom of God.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

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.

HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

RYKEN, LELAND (2015) Literary Introduction to the Books of the Bible, Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois.

All human beings die: God does not exist?

Today

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

Unaccepted enthymemes

An enthymeme argument is one where a stage of it is accepted by both parties. (203) A fallacy can occur when this stage is not accepted within an argument. (203).

One makes a general statement and makes it known his/her specific case falls under that general rule. (204-205).

Based on Pirie (205):

I am late. The traffic was horrible.

(My house is next door and I walked here. The walking traffic was just fine. The second premise does not support the first.)

Frank just died of cancer. God does not exist.

(God's existence is not based on the circumstances of human beings. In this present realm, all human beings eventually die. This is supported by Genesis 1-3, the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. The second premise does not support the first.)

One could state, fallaciously:

All human beings die. God does not exist.

Tu quoque

University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2004

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

Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201).

This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202).

As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202).

This appears to be a form of ad hominem and Logically fallacious agrees:

Logically fallacious

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) argumentum ad hominem tu quoque (also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)

Description:

Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true. Therefore, Y must not be true.

My example:

Proponent: You should consider abandoning your Hostess, Twinkies and Ding Dong, diet.
Opponent: What do you know? You live a 'fatastic', 'flabulous' life!

Non-fallacious

Proponent: You should consider abandoning your Hostess, Twinkies and Ding Dong, diet.
Opponent: Yes, I should consider minimizing Hostess to Saturday afternoon snack.

The opponent should examine the truthfulness or falseness of the proponent's premise, regardless of the proponent's actions.

(I have not eaten Hostess since I was a child in the 1980's)

Matthew 7: 21-23 In short

Matthew 7: 21-23 In short

Preface

August 18, 2017 article, edited October 16 2023 for a version on academia.edu

Back in 2017, listening to an online pastor describe the sin and evil associated with much modern, evangelical Christian dating, he opined that many evangelicals were false Christians. This well-known pastor used Matthew 7: 21-23 as example of these types of people.

This raised a red flag in my mind.

One of my theology professors at Trinity Western University, Dr. Earl Radmacher, was involved with Grace In Focus. I subscribed to their newsletter prior to moving to England. Below is a presentation from one of their theologians.

Matthew 7: 21-23 In short

Faith Alone/Grace In Focus

Cited

'Bob Wilkin is the Executive Director of Grace Evangelical Society.'

'21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" 23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."'

Wilkin cited

'What, then, does Jesus mean by the will of the Father and who are those who do it? One popular view today suggests that by the expression "the will of My Father" Jesus meant a life characterized by obedience to all that the Father has commanded. Thus those who do the will of the Father would be people who live godly, holy lives.'

This is the interpretation, if I understood the online pastor reasonably well, that he was to some significant degree, theologically embracing. Those that are true Christians, will embrace biblical and not worldly systems of dating (and marriage).

Wilkin cited

'There are several problems with this interpretation. First, God is perfect and one cannot enter His kingdom without becoming absolutely perfect (Isa. 64:6; Gal. 3:6-14; Heb. 10:1-18; James 2:10). Second, one cannot be said to have done the will of the Father unless he does it completely, 100%. To violate even just one of God's commands is to break them all (James 2:10). Third, even if these first two objections were not valid, this view leads to the unbiblical conclusion that no one can ever be sure that he is saved until he dies or is raptured. No one could ever know if he had obeyed enough. Yet the Scriptures are clear that the apostles knew with absolute certainty that they were saved and they wanted their readers to know this as well (Luke 10:20; John 13:10; Rom. 8:31-39; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 2:12-14, 25; 5:13).

There is another view as to what Jesus meant by the expression "the will of My Father." When Jesus spoke of doing the will of the Father to obtain kingdom entrance, He had one act of obedience in mind: believing the gospel. It is God's will that none should perish but that all should come to a change of mind about the gospel (2 Pet. 3:9). When asked the question, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:28-29).'

Those evaluating Christian theology should be careful not to make their view of perfect or near perfect theology the test for whether or not a person is a true biblical Christian. This would include worldview perspectives on dating, and marriage for that matter.

Wilkin cited

'A person who trusts in Christ alone obeys completely the will of the Father to believe in Jesus Christ alone for eternal salvation. Such a person obtains absolute perfection before God [positionally speaking] since Christ takes away all of his sins and gives him His righteousness in exchange (2 Cor. 5:21; Col. 2:13-14; Heb. 10:1-18). And, such a person can be 100% sure of his salvation since he can know with certainty that he has done the will of the Father (in relation to the gospel) once and for all (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; Rom. 8:38-39; 1 John 5:13). Acts 5:32 and Acts 6:7 also refer to believing the gospel as an act of obedience to God.'

Being chosen, regenerated, and justified through the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ: 

Titus 3:5-7

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs [a]according to the hope of eternal life.

Bible Hub

Strong 3824 παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ

παλινγενεσίας in Titus 3: 5

Strong's Concordance paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal 

Greek scholar Bauer documents regeneration as: The rebirth of the redeemed person. (606). The regeneration and rebirth via the Holy Spirit. (606).  

Wilkin cited

'Probably many of those who will say "Lord, Lord have we not prophesied, cast out demons, and done many wonders in Your name" are people who in this life were pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and the like. They may have baptized many, prayed and witnessed much, and done what they thought were many deeds which made them think that they were probably saved. Notice that Jesus does not question whether they actually did such deeds. Yet He rebukes them for not doing the Father's will and He denies them kingdom entrance. Those who do not believe in Christ alone for their salvation have failed to do the will of the Father.'

Wilkin cited

'May we call people to do the will of God so that they can obtain entrance into the kingdom of God. Those who place their trust wholly in Jesus Christ have done the will of the Father and have already passed from death to life (John 5:24) and will not come into judgment regarding their eternal destiny (John 3:18).'

Matthew 7: 21-23 is not damning supposed believers that do not have perfect or near perfect theology and err in certain areas of worldview and theology. Matthew 7: 21-23 is discussing certain persons who do works in the name of Jesus Christ, and perhaps in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These people are trusting in their religious works such as prophecy, casting out demons and supernatural wonders; whereas if he/she was chosen and regenerated by God through he atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ he/she would be trusting in God and Jesus Christ for salvation, with justification by grace (alone) through faith (alone), not by works, but for good works (Ephesians 1-2).

The theology of those damned was error, so theology does matter. These unregenerate lacked the essential theology and trusting faith/belief to be saved and trusted in works righteousness. It is not theological error on secondary issues, but theological error in regard to primary issues.

Wilkin cited

'What would you say if you appeared before God and He said, “Why should I let you into My kingdom?” Matthew 7:22 is the wrong answer. The right answer is, “Lord, I am an unworthy sinner who has placed his complete trust upon what Jesus did for me upon the cross, and He promised that whoever believes in Him has eternal life” (Luke 18:13-14; John 3:16; Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).'

In other words, being regenerated, justified and saved through the applied atoning resurrection work of Jesus Christ by grace through faith alone. Works are not for salvation, but any legitimate, godly works are within salvation.

Wilkin Reference

WILKEN BOB (1988) 'Not Everyone Who Says “Lord, Lord” Will Enter the Kingdom: Matthew 7:21-23; Grace in Focus Articles, GES, December 1, 1988, Denton, Texas. 

https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/not-everyone-who-says-lord-lord-will-enter-the-kingdom/

References

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

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

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

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans. 

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

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

HODGES, ZANE C AND EARL RADMACHER (1990) The NIV Reconsidered : A Fresh Look at a Popular Translation, Redencion Viva, Texas.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

Points of agreement on Hell

Edinburgh, 1995: Colourized (More like it actually was)

Points of agreement on Hell 

August 17, 2017 article, edited September 30, 2023 for an entry on academia.edu

Points of agreement on Hell (a)

I admit that I am not in the spiritual and academic position to verify any person's Heaven or Hell account for absolute truthfulness. As it is not a canonized story from the New Testament, reasoned to be the inspired, inherent, word of God, an account could be non-fiction reality, fiction or a dream. An account can be a very tricky proposition. I therefore, do not endorse this video or the ministry. I do not know this man and I have only listened to two presentations. I do not have an exhaustive knowledge of the theology of his ministry.

Heaven and Hell stories often contradict the New Testament and biblical theology and would have me doubt them as authentic. However, this presentation, whether non-fiction reality, fiction or dream, based on bible and theology has some significant concepts in common with my own 'Hell theory' and Hell theology. To be clear, I do reason a person with significant theological knowledge could arrive with reasonably biblical conclusions without a 'Hell' visit.

As stated, I viewed two presentations from this speaker:

Points of agreement on Hell (b)

The Trinity

The Biblical God is demonstrated as triune. The Trinity. 

Matthew 28-19-20, a classic key, New Testament of the triune God.

English Standard Version (ESV)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” 

Millard Erickson in 'Christian Theology' expresses a Biblical, orthodox (not meaning Orthodox Church here) position on the Trinity via the Council of Constantinople (381). Erickson (1994: 335). A formula ὑποστάσεις was expressed, which expressed three separate persons that exist simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. Erickson (1994: 335). The idea being the Godhead is undivided in essential nature, in divided persons. Erickson (1994: 335).

Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (847).

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, as three distinctions within the Godhead, with one essential nature, are in sovereign control of Hades. According to the New Testament, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, applied to those in Jesus Christ, is the only means of human salvation. Notably, John 1, and John 14, as key examples.

Degrees of literalness

The Scripture and the book of Revelation, describes Hades and Hell with degrees of literalness, that could often be described as figurative literal language. Mounce notes is his Revelation commentary that the eschatological presentation in the Revelation, text, offers degrees of literalness. Mounce reasons that most scholars allow for varying levels of literal interpretation in regard to the new creation. (369). Mounce further demonstrates the rather figurative literal (not mythological, non-fictional, my add) nature of this eschatological language in Revelation. The reference to 'no longer any sea' (New American Standard Bible, my add) is likely a reference to a dread of the sea by many ancient cultures. The sea was viewed as an evil. To state that through the metaphorical use of 'sea' that evil will no longer exist in the new order, seems far more intellectually palatable than attempting to explain the lack of major water bodies in a new creation within an everlastingly liveable (livable) universe for human beings. 

Sinful human nature

The sinful human nature (via the fall) is abundantly exposed. (Romans, Revelation, as examples).

People in Hades might become progressively more evil, being further past the time of common grace when he/she was alive on earth and experienced much of God's goodness. I opine, not dogmatically, that all citizens in hell may become increasingly more insane. Hades seems to be about continually experiencing one's own embraced sinful nature and sinful thoughts, acts and actions. This serves as punishment. (The Gospels, Luke 16, Revelation as examples).

There is an aspect of these citizens of earth knowing there is a God (Romans 1), without embracing knowledge of God by grace through personal, trusting faith; instead embracing a rejection of God. There is a rejection of the triune God. There is a rejection of Jesus Christ and the gospel. As one of my previous pastors stated: There is a God, and it is not you. God in a sense, is demonstrating love to humanity that rejects him, by allowing citizens of Hades to live forever opposed to him.

The problem of the physical, post-mortem

However, the speaker (in the two long videos I viewed) does not deal with the issue of how physicality is granted to disembodied spirits. I have speculated that perhaps both Hades and Paradise have a simulated physicality, from a human perspective, for a sense of continuity with this present realm and the future permanent realms where humanity exists.

Those in Hades (Hell1) ultimately are resurrected  according to many scholars, and placed into the lake of fire (Hell2) (Revelation 20). Those in Jesus Christ (Revelation 20-22), are physically resurrected (1 Corinthians 15, 1-2 Thessalonians) and move from Paradise (Heaven1) to residing in the culminated Kingdom of God (Heaven2). If a person is alive at resurrection, the believer in Christ becomes resurrected.

Prior to the resurrection of human beings, the very significant problem of supposed physicality for disembodied spirits, exists. This should be dealt with philosophically and theologically by those that claim they have been to Heaven or Hell. If not, the issue remains intellectually problematic...

For more on Near Death Experiences see

Gary Habermas.com

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

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

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

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 J. (1996) ‘Second Coming of Christ’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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.

FINKBEINER, DOUGLASE (2004) Interpreting Luke 16: Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man-Parable or History?, Lansdale, PA , Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary.

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

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

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.

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company. 

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

  

Such Trivial Objections

York scan, 1997

Such Trivial Objections

August 16, 2017 review of this fallacy in the Pirie text, edited for an entry on academia.edu on August 27, 2022.

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

Trivial Objections

Trivial objections leave a central thesis largely unchallenged. (199).

In other words, the major premise (s) of an argument is not reasonably, intellectually countered, but instead trivial points in objection are made. (Based on 199).

Example, (via 199):

I am opposed to the new highway system going through our beautiful town.

It will make our maps out of date.

(Maps can be changed, online and offline.)

Pirie explains this fallacy is similar to the straw man (see recent entry in archives), in that it does not counter the main premise (s) of an argument, but deals with the trivial. (199). Some trivial objections may be true, but regardless the approach is fallacious and does not deal with the core argument. (199).

Example:

I am unconvinced by the biblical story.

The Bible does not deal with modern scientific objections.

(The Bible is presenting compiled, well-supported by manuscripts, texts of religious history from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. It is not a science text, nor is it dealing with scientific objections of the modern or any era. A reasonable critique of the Bible must be made in the context the texts presented.)

According to Pirie, the trivial objections are designed to destroy the argument of the opposition, but they are not up to the task. It does not make the objections 'erroneous', but they are not adequate. (199).

The biblical critic reasonably should deal with the biblical story via worldview, theology and philosophy of religion considerations and not demand scientific explanations, as the bible texts are not science texts. But scientific critiques of biblical texts may or may not be sound, based on Pirie's idea that trivial objections are not necessarily erroneous.

Pirie explains that trivial objections can provide hypothetical situations in an attempt to debunk an argument. (200).

Example:

I would love to accept your invitation to discuss the importance of church membership.

But the stress might cause me to have a heart attack.

(This person does not want to be a church member)

Citing 

Neil Godrey from Vridar 

'The problem with trivial objections is that they leave the central thesis largely untouched. It is fallacious to oppose a contention on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than giving an answer to the main claim which it makes. . . .The fallacy is akin to that of the straw man. Instead of facing the main opponent, in this case it is only a few aspects of it which are confronted. The trivial objections are possibly valid, the point is that they are also trivial, and not adequate to the work of demolishing the case which is presented. The fallacy is committed because they are not up to the task to which they are assigned, not because they are erroneous. . . . .' (End citation)

Key propositions and/or premises and conclusion, need to be properly and reasonably dealt with, as opposed to focusing on side issues.

Key issue: The person broke the law and slandered someone in public.

Side issue: The person has bad breath and should use mouthwash.

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

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

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

GODFREY, NEIL (2016) 'Trivial Fallacies of a Hostile Anti-Mythicist' Vridar. https://vridar.org/2016/04/04/trivial-fallacies-of-a-hostile-anti-mythicist/

LANDER.EDU (1997-2020) Licensed under GFDL https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html 

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

MCDONALD, H.D. (1996) ‘Bible, Authority of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

MCRAY, J.R. (1996) ‘Bible, Canon of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

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

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

The Book of Philippians: Theme

Sunday

The Book of Philippians: Theme

Hewlett explains that the Apostle Paul is thankful for the Christian fellowship with the church at Philippi, even as he is imprisoned. Hewlett (1440).

The Apostle Paul has been encouraged by the arrival of Epaphroditus from that church (Philippians 2). Hewlett (1440). The Apostle 'pays warm tribute to the repeated generosity of the church'. Martin (42).

But, the Apostle, is troubled by the lack of harmony in the church. Hewlett (1440). This church is to be 'marked by the mind of Christ' according to the Apostle. Hewlett (1440). Chapter 2, verses 1-2, explains from Paul that via the Holy Spirit, joy should be made complete by maintaining the same love, united in spirit and intent on one purpose. In context, the gospel purpose.

There is a call for 'unity and concord' from the Apostle. Martin (43). There is a call for a Christian standard of behaviour toward others in the Church. Martin (43).

The Apostle writes against Judaizers on one hand, and 'libertines' (1440), on the other hand. Hewlett (1440). These are enemies of the cross of Christ. Hewlett (1448). See Philippians, Chapter 3.

The Judaizers are those who rely on law over grace and the gospel, atonement of resurrection of Christ (Ephesians 1-2). The 'libertines' are those who deny the atonement and resurrection in a spiritual liberty leading to death and destruction. Martin mentions that there may have been a 'perfectionist' wing in the church at Philippi. Martin (43-44). Is there overlap with this possible group and Judaizers?

The Elwell text opines that within the Book of Philippians, there are those that advocate for a combination of the atonement and resurrection of Christ and also the continuation of Mosaic law, and rituals, such as circumcision. Elwell (297). This is the Judaizers. The Apostle Paul responds by stating that the heirs to the law are those in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Elwell (297). The Judaizers opposed the cross of Christ by requiring the works of the law. Gundry (302).

Even as scholarship was not crystal clear in parsing these groups, in my opinion, Philippians does not exhaustively explain the nature of these groups. The Apostle Paul's theology is clear:

A gospel that does not embrace that the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ saves believers alone, is not the true, New Testament gospel. Those that promote a false gospel are enemies of the cross of Christ (3:18). Leland Ryken correctly reasons that the Apostle Paul embraced Jesus Christ's teaching that false teacher's exist and that Paul's example was to be followed. Ryken (458).

Hewlett writes that the church should not consist of those with 'selfish individualism'. Hewlett (1448). Paul expressed the need for Christian unity in love. Hewlett (1448).

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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.

HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

RYKEN, LELAND (2015) Literary Introduction to the Books of the Bible, Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois.

The Book of Philippians: Date

Sunday

The Book of Philippians: Date

Ralph P. Martin documents the establishment of the church in Phillippi as the entrance of the gospel of Jesus Christ onto the continent of Europe. Martin (17). Martin bases this on the description from Acts 16: 12-40. Martin (17). Phillippi was located in Macedonia, which is now in modern Greece.

The traditional dating of this Philippians epistle is associated with the Apostle Paul's time in prison in Rome. Martin (17). Therefore, it is considered one of the prison epistles. Robert Gundry dates the text at 62-63 A.D. Gundry (364).

Martin describes two theories, where Paul could have written the text:

One is the proposed captivity of Paul, near Ephesus, in 54-55. There is another Roman captivity from Acts 28: 30 which dates from 61-63 A.D. Martin (37), which is the classic view.

Hewlett states that the Acts 28: 30 theory of the later date is the historically held view. Hewlett (1440). However, the earlier view based on Paul's time in Ephesus has gained some support in more modern times. Hewlett (1440). Hewlett writes that there is no scriptural, documented imprisonment of Paul in Ephesus, although this might have taken place in 2 Corinthians 11: 23. Hewlett (1440). He reasons the evidence for the traditional Roman captivity view, later on chronologically, is the stronger view based on evidence. Hewlett (1440). Oxford's Browning opines that there is no clear evidence for the imprisonment of Paul at Ephesus. Brown (294). Therefore, an earlier dating for the text seems academically questionable.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

***A note for those that may be excessively challenged with geography: The book of Philippians was not written in the Philippines and it is not specifically written to people in or from the Philippines.

Although I can admit that it would be handy if it was, so these both could have the same English spelling.

In Three Minutes: Do you have MVD?

Today: This is non-exhaustive and short.

Today

Market Value Dating

Thatcher's Blame

Daily Mail

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

Thatcher's Blame

This fallacy attaches blame no matter what outcome occurs. (198). Thatcher's Blame covers all conceivable outcomes. (198).

It is a fallacy because the evidence is irrelevant when the determination of guilt precedes the result of actions. (198).

Thatcher can always be to blame.

For political opponents using this fallacy, their worldview presupposes a premise (s) of blame for this former Conservative Party, Prime Minister and the conclusion also reasons blame.

This fallacy demonstrates a close-minded approach concerning a famous, political individual.

This fallacy can be used in contexts against various worldviews such as, for example, Christianity, atheism, Islam.

Paraphrased:

A Christian is generous to a poor person.

Critic X

Christians contribute to liberal-socialism in the world.

A Christian is not generous to a poor person.

Critic X

Christians do not care about the poor.

Or if we avoid the use of 'not'...

A Christian keeps money to self.

Critic X

Christians are selfish.

Pirie explains that Lady Thatcher was often found guilty of creating both poverty and wealth. (197-198).

May 5, 2022 

This type of reasoning lacks in rational objectivity. A proposition (s) (statement (s)) and/or an argument with premise (s) and conclusion, has a strong, closed-minded bias.

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. (Philosophy).

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

Cats & Dogs

Lausanne: hotelroomsearchdotnet: Forward, January 2018

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

The Langer philosophy text review, continues.

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
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And

To combine various classes, that are not the same, through the use disjunction or conjunction, positive statements are required to connect membership. (145-146). Langer's example:

C = Cats
D = Dogs

(x) : x ε C ⊃ (x ε -D) (146).

Variable equals variable is Cats, is the same as variable is not Dogs.

Also

C < -D

Cats is included in not Dogs.

D < -C

Dogs is included in not Cats.

Langer explains that this principle of dichotomy provides liberty to logical expression. (146). Negative statements can be turned into positive statements, and positive statements can be turned into negative ones. This approach assumes that if something is not A or B it is -A x -B. (146).

Everything that is not in the class of Cats or Dogs, is not Cats or Dogs.

H = Horses

H ` C < H ` D

Horses are not cats is included with horses are not dogs.

(x) : (x ε H) ⊃ (x ε -C) ⊃ (x ε -D)

Variable equals variable is Horses, means variable is not the same as Cats, means variable is not the same as Dogs.

Horses are not the same as cats and horses are not the same as dogs.

(x) : (x ε H) ⊨ (x ε -C) ⊨ (x ε -D)

Variable equals variable is Horses, entails variable is not Cats, entails variable is not Dogs.

Horses are not the same as cats and horses are not the same as dogs.

You Tube: Ah, like childhood memories

The moderate view is always the correct one?

Switzerland: Facebook

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

The argumentum ad temperantiam

This fallacy reasons the moderate view is always the correct one. (195). Moderation equates to soundness. (195).

Taking an average or moderate view does not mean it will be a correct view. (195).

I describe myself online as a moderate conservative in regards to religious studies and philosophical views and as well, political views. I attempt to take moderate positions, even when I am stating that a premise is true and therefore, contradictory positions are false. In other words, I attempt to take reasonable, researched positions.

Example

Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation.

Non-exhaustive from the New Testament

John 14:6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Acts 4:12 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” 

Hebrews 9:27-28 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

27 And inasmuch as it is [a]appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Footnotes: Hebrews 9:27 Lit laid up

Through the use of the scripture, biblical studies, theology and even philosophy of religion, I can make reasoned, researched positions that I consider moderate. But, I can admit, in a sense, as the exclusivity of Christ is not inclusive of contradictory views, it will be considered an extreme view by many.

There is an aspect of semantics and interpretation is defining what is moderate and what is extreme.

The moderate view, defined in a certain context, is not always the correct one. Agreed.

A correct view, may be achieved fortuitously, such as being born into it via parents and culture. But a reasoned, researched view that is true (it could be false) is likely to have a higher level of correctness.

The Straw Man

TTGonline: Lausanne, Switzerland: January 2018...

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

Tin Man October 17 2016

Pire reasons this has also been called the 'Tin Man' fallacy as in the Tin Man, from the Wizard of Oz (1939) has no heart. (93). This is opposed to the 'Straw Man' fallacy. (93). The Straw Man fallacy will be discussed in a future entry, but it misrepresents an opponent's position, and then knocks that misrepresented position down. (193).
---

The straw man fallacy occurs when one misrepresents an opponent's position; this is created to knock down the opponent's position. (193).

Example from my Columbia Bible College experience (Paraphrased).

Student: You do not hold to Mennonite non-resistance and pacifism.

Student: You support the maintaining of law and order through state force (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2).

Student: You support 'just war.'

Student: Therefore, you support 'preventive war', under the guise of 'just war', theory.

Undergrad Russ: No, I clearly stated that I do not support, 'preventive war' theory. Nor do I think every war defined by governments as 'just war' is always a just war.

Student; Yes, you do.

Undergrad Russ: No, I clearly do not based on what I have stated. You are twisting the terminology I have used. Further, you should not be attempting to tell me what I believe.
---

The student misrepresented my law and order and just war position as equating with preventive war theory. This student built a straw man.
---

Traditionally, the straw man deliberately overstates an opponent's position. (193). This was done by my opponent at Columbia Bible College. The adversary is portrayed as the extremist. (193).

As was I in my example, as I did not hold to the classic Anabaptist/Mennonite position.

The real position of the opponent is not adequately reasoned with when this fallacy is used. (193).

This will be frequently used in religion and philosophy debates.

At church a few months ago, a teacher and proponent of incompatiblism stated to me that 'You do not want to be a compatibilist', as he implied that equated to a hard determinist. In other words, anyone that holds to any form of determinism is a hard determinist.

This is academically and philosophically, false and a misrepresentation of my position. I explained:

Incompatibilism

There can be no antecedent (prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). With this view, freedom is incompatible with contingently sufficient nonsubsequent conditions of an action. The contingently sufficient nonsubsequent actions would be God making people in such a way that they only freely did one thing or another. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Hard determinism v Soft determinism/Compatibilism

Within hard determinism God (theistic model) would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism God would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause.

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596). Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).

Technically, hard determinism and soft determinism/compatibilism are not defined identically and in fact have significant differences.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in 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.

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

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

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

In Three Minutes: Why I still blog?/New work?

Six reasons, not all of them. Abbotsford today: Smog+manure.

Special pleading (Live in a shack?)

Smogtown, British Columbia, on the way to Elvis, Red Cross benefit

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

Special pleading

This involves application of a double standard. (190).

This fallacy asserts the need for exceptions in judgment of premises and conclusions. (190).

A less strict standard is asserted for one's cause, even as other causes are applied a more strict standard. (190).

Based on the author's example: (Crowded room): 'I wish these people would keep quiet, so we can have our conversation.' (191). Based on the author's example (Journalist): 'I certainly want my right to privacy maintained, but as a journalist, for the public interest, I hound people day and night to demand answers.' (191). What if another journalist or other, hounded that journalist for answers day and night?

Logically fallacious

Special Pleading

Description:

'Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. 

Example #1: Yes, I do think that all drunk drivers should go to prison, but your honor, he is my son! He is a good boy who just made a mistake!'
---

I am the former Vice-President of the United States of America and a multi-millionaire, I need to have an elaborate lifestyle of high-energy consumption, but you common folk need to cut your energy usage for the sake of the climate and environment.

Hmm, do as I say, not as I do. When a millionaire living very well cuts his/her energy consumption the overall amount of energy used is still more than most common folk.

Why not live in well-built and energy efficient shack, sir?

The Slippery Slope: Stepping off a skyscraper

The Slippery Slope: Stepping off a skyscraper

Beautiful Travel Pic, Red Beach, Panjn, China, Twitter  

From my website review of Pirie on August 4, 2017. This article has been edited for an entry on academia.edu on August 18, 2022.

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

The fallacy assumes that a single step in a particular direction, inevitably means that the whole distance will be covered. (189).

But, the truth is, sometimes a single step leads to another and there are cases when it does not. (189).

I agree with Pirie where he reasons:

'There is a limited class of cases in which someone is doomed after a first step...' Stepping off a skyscraper being a good philosophical example. (189).

Based on the author's example: (189).

If we lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age, soon there will be a call in society for the legal drinking age to be lowered to 16 years of age.

This is unlikely as in the 21st Century, the standard age of adulthood is typically 18 years of age. Therefore, it is doubtful there would be societal calls for the legal age of drinking to be below 'universal' adulthood.

The fallacy fails to differentiate between far-reaching actions and limited actions. (190). The author opines that most proposals would lead to disaster if taken too far.

My examples:

If one smokes marijuana, it will lead to cocaine use.

This is true at times, marijuana being documented as a gateway drug, but it is not always the case in every instance. As it is written it is fallacious.

If one smokes marijuana, it may lead to cocaine use.

Reasonable.

(I have no interest in recreational drugs or in the abuse of pharmaceutical drugs.)
---

If one looks at naked women, he/she will become addicted to hardcore pornography.

This can be true, but is not always the case.

Many of us while appreciating female beauty, find hardcore pornography, unsatisfying and visually gross.

From a Christian perspective, the Lord can sanctify a believer to understand that pornography of any type, is a waste of time, as far as meaningful sexual gain. It is also unethical and immoral. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6: 18 that sexual sin is committed against one's own body.

Logically fallacious

Referencing

WALTON, D.N. (1992) Slippery Slope Arguments, Clarendon Press.

'Slippery Slope (also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)

Description:

When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”'
---

One of my University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, tutors criticized me for not being more assertive with certain arguments and using the term 'some'. As with all the critiques, wanting to pass, I took it very seriously and implemented changes. However, the slippery slope fallacy is another example of where the term 'some' can protect the correctness of premises.

If some people use marijuana, it may lead to some people using heroine.

'Some' type premises should be presented with caution. From my United Kingdom experience, these types of arguments may be labelled 'assertions' by tutors.

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.

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.

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

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

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

WALTON, D.N. (1992) Slippery Slope Arguments, Clarendon Press.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Slippery-Slope