I, deny

East Maple Ridge

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

Another short entry in regard to the subject of negation in philosophy, which is also a subject in the Langer, Symbolic Logic text under review on this website.

Based on Blackburn, to deny a premise/proposition as true equals asserting it as false. To asserts in negation. (99).

I deny atheism as a worldview, and at the same time assert it as false. I assert the philosophical negation of atheism as a worldview.

(This is not to state that within atheism, there are not some valid critiques)

I deny libertarian free will as a view, and at the same time assert it as false. I assert the philosophical negation of libertarian free will as a view.

(This is not to state that within libertarian free will view (s), there are not some valid critiques)

In regard to the last three images from Blackburn: That is red is contradicted by that is green, and if both are considered false, it does not exclude, for example, that is brown.

Frege texts are in German and limited to cite in English:

Negation and being by Daniel Dahlstrom of Boston University

The Review of Metaphysics 64 (December 2010): 247–271. by The Review of Metaphysics.

Frege insists, for example, that the being of a thought (das Sein eines Gedankens) may be affirmed or denied and, hence, must be distinguished from its being-true (Wahrsein).12 Thus, for Frege it is not the affirmation but the thought that is denied. In the Tractatus (§5.5151), Wittgenstein categorically rejects an asymmetricalist position: “The positive sentence must presuppose the existence of the negative sentence and vice versa.”13 (251-252), Gottlob Frege, “Die Verneinung (1919)” in Logische Untersuchungen, ed. Günther Patzig (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 56 and following.

Analyzing this, it appears the view is that the being of thought accepted or denied, must be philosophically separated from an affirmation of it being true or false. This would connect to Wittgenstein and views of certainty which I did review for my PhD.

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

DAHLSTROM, DANIEL (2010) The Review of Metaphysics 64 (December 2010): 247–271. by The Review of Metaphysics.

FREGE, GOTTLOB (1919) “Die Verneinung (1919)” in Logische Untersuchungen, ed. Günther Patzig (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Blackburn page 99.

Blackburn page 258.

Blackburn page 258.

Blackburn page 258.

East Maple Ridge

Denying the consequent (Arguing carefully)

North Vancouver, last evening

From Blackburn it is valid that the antecedent is prior to the consequent in philosophy and logic. It is stated that

p = Antecedent
q = Consequent

It is argued:

p The leg is broken
q The leg will hurt

The inference is...

-q The leg does not hurt
-p The leg is not broken

This is logical.

Psychology Dictionary April 7 2013

Cited

Logic. If a conditional statement is accepted as true then the negative can be inferred as well. Also called modus tollens...

Cited

Denying the consequent is where the negative aspect is also true.

This is logical.

Blackburn page 99.

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

However, in contrast.

The leg is broken

The leg is comfortable

(The leg is under the influence of narcotics)

This is logical.

Again we analyze the logical and the reasonable.

This is using fuzzy logic

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Premises and conclusions using fuzzy logic would be philosophically imprecise.

This type of logic was something I was strictly guided not to present  when writing my British academic questionnaires.

But even with British academic propositions, it was difficult to avoid degrees of truth. When dealing with the problem of evil and theodicy, I was often faced with concepts of degrees of evil. My doctoral text was reviewing and countering the philosophy that gratuitous evil worked against the existence of God. There are often, I reason, degrees of evil, but in my Reformed theology and philosophy I embraced the view that God wills and causes all things (both directly and allowing) and uses evil for divine purposes, and in that sense it is not gratuitous evil.

However, in my view, presenting logical and more importantly to me, reasonable premises and conclusions in text does at times require the use of degrees of truth.

For example, the use of HTML colour requires degrees and shades of red. A bright red, solid form of red is represented as #FF0000 from many sources. Another form of red may be called red, but is actually brownish in colour, for example. Various degrees and shades can be presented logically and reasonably with premises and conclusions, but in reality, there are many kinds of reds. Some are mixed with blue and/or yellow and other colours.

Blackburn page 151. 

From Blackburn, again as with the Langer, Symbolic Logic textbook, we deal with negation. If a room is hot, using fuzzy logic and logic of degrees, then it is at the same time, not cold.

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

Blackburn

Ending to Mark (16: 9-20)

Cited from You Tube

The abrupt ending to the Gospel of Mark seemed troubling to early readers, and one seems to have written an alternative that not only gave a more complete conclusion, but also inserted encouragements meaningful to Christian readers early in the 2nd century.

Mr. Gore's views will find definite disagreement from some within the Christian Church, especially many conservatives and fundamentalists. At Canadian Baptist Seminary (Trinity Western University), I wrote a research paper on the subject and did, and still do find the abrupt ending of Mark 16: 8 biblically and theologically acceptable.

Jesus Christ had risen, and the risen Christ being 'red-letter' documented and quoted in the text is not a biblical, New Testament requirement, in my view.

Again, we should be careful of what we add to orthodoxy in the Christian Church.

However:

My Marcan (Markan) professor reasoned that 16: 9-20 was indeed not written by the New Testament disciple, Mark, but by a Holy Spirit inspired scribe. This is a reasonable possibility, and according to scholarship other books in the New Testament may have been written in whole or part by anonymous scribes (Hebrews for example).

I had and have an intellectual difficultly with the theory presented in my seminary class, that Mark had died and therefore could not finish the text. My view on God's sovereignty reasons that as the Lord has Mark author the gospel, he would finish that gospel.

Edited from previous work on my Satire Und Theology website:

Mark 16: 9-20 does not appear in Codex Vaticanus (B),or Codex Sinaiticus (Sin), the two oldest groups of manuscripts. Marlowe (2006: 1).

(Gore comments likewise on the video).

The manuscripts have Mark ending at 16: 8. However, 16: 9-20 does appear in Codex Alexandrinus (A), which is a slightly newer manuscript. Miller (2005: 1). It is possible a scribe or scribes added 16: 9-20, which became part the majority of New Testament texts, but it does not change the essential message of the Gospel or New Testament. We have copies from the two older groups of manuscripts which allow scholars to speculate that it is possible that Mark 16: 9-20 was not written by Mark, but written by a scribe at a later date.

I do not see any need to place demands upon the Marcan text and state that it had to have contained an actual resurrection appearance. The ending of the book does make it clear that Christ was no longer in the tomb and was resurrected. The tomb was empty, and a man, likely of supernatural origin in 16: 6-7 made it clear that Christ had risen.

My hope is that a scribe or scribes did not think that the lack of a resurrection appearance and an abrupt ending meant that another ending had to be created. My New American Standard Bible has two different additional endings after 16: 8. However, if endings were added by scribes, God has still provided the Church with evidence of this from Codex Vaticanus (B),and Codex Sinaiticus (Sin). The Church could therefore take anything stated in these verses as less than Biblically authoritative, but these verses do not influence major Christian doctrines.

I therefore can view our present New Testament as an essentially accurate copy of the original inspired word of God. Mark 16: 9-20 does not appear in Codex Vaticanus (B),or Codex Sinaiticus (Sin), the two oldest groups of manuscripts. Marlowe (2006: 1). The manuscripts have Mark ending at 16: 8. However, 16: 9-20 does appear in Codex Alexandrinus (A), which is a slightly newer manuscript. Miller (2005: 1).

We have copies from the two older groups of manuscripts which allow scholars to speculate that it is possible that Mark 16: 9-20 was not written by Mark, but written by a scribe at a later date. God has therefore not allowed a corruption of New Testament theology at its core even if he did allow an uninspired scribe to write 16: 9-20 and allowed it to become part of the majority text. It is also possible that Mark died and God inspired an associate who had known Mark to complete the book which appears in the majority text. As noted, I do find this view problematic.

Marlowe, Michael D. (2006) ‘Mark 16: 9-20’, Bible-Researcher.com, Ohio. Marlowe

Miller, Dave (2005) ‘Is Mark 16: 9-20 Inspired?’, Apologetics Press.org, Montgomery, Alabama. Miller

The Wonderful Amazing World; Facebook

Utopia/Dystopia (Briefly)

NASA

Blackburn

Utopia

From the Greek. It is philosophically considered an ideal place or state of life. (388).

The term arises from the text Utopia by Thomas More (1516). (388). Over time utopian views have been expressed within certain political movements.

Blackburn explains utopian views are problematic, as they imply overly simplistic views on human nature. (388).

Indeed, a Biblical and Reformed view on human nature based largely on the New Testament book of Romans (Chapters 1-6 especially), portrays human beings as universally corrupted by a fall from God's direct benevolent rule (Genesis 3) to sinful private, corporate and national independence. The applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ as both eternal God and perfectly holy man, being the remedy for those that are regenerated to belief (Titus 3:5).

Within my MPhil/PhD work on theodicy and the problem of evil, I do not recall the New Testament and Revelation concepts of new heaven and new earth being defined as utopia. Perhaps this is because utopia is a more modern term with negative political associations, and as well the noted problematic assumptions in regard to the actual state of human nature. Modern political utopias embrace incorrect premises and conclusions in regard to political systems.

Dystopia

Blackburn explains that this a negative utopia where instead of all things politically considered to be going well, things are not going well. Blackburn's listed examples are Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and George Orwell's 1984 within fiction.(113). Communism and Nazism would be noted non-fictional attempts at utopia, that misunderstood (misunderstand) human nature to the negative, as forms of dystopia.

From a Biblical and New Testament perspective, any human attempt at utopia, would to some degree be a dystopia, because human nature and societies have not been transformed to be Christ-like which will take place within the culminated Kingdom of God, for those who are within that Kingdom (Revelation).

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

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

Apostasy (Briefly)

The book review continues:

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter 14: Islam Imprisons Its Adherents

Mr. Wallace comments on Islam and apostasy. (109). The author cites of Reliance of the Traveller which is a classic manual of Islamic law. See photos below.

For a different perspective within academia...

Jonathan Brown

 According to

Dr. Jonathan A. C. Brown is a Director of Research at Yaqeen Institute, and an Associate Professor and Chair of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University. He is the editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and the Law, and the author of several books including Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenges and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy.

Cited

The way that the early Muslim community seems to have understood apostasy differs strikingly from the decisive rulings of the later schools of law. This is most clear in the rulings of the Prophet ﷺ himself. There is no reliable evidence that the Prophet ﷺ ever executed anyone for apostasy, as was observed by the famous scholar of Cordoba, Ibn al-Ṭallāʿ (d. 1103).[30] When one of the Companions, ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh left Islam and became Christian while the Muslims were seeking refuge in Ethiopia, the Prophet ﷺ did not order him punished.[31] The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya, which the Prophet ﷺ concluded with the Quraysh, stated that if anyone decided to leave the Muslim community in Medina no harm would befall them. There was no mention of a punishment for apostasy. In fact, when a man who had come to the Prophet ﷺ just the day before to pledge his loyalty to Islam wanted to be released from his oath, the Prophet ﷺ let him go.[32] Imam al-Shāfiʿī himself notes how, during the Prophet ﷺ’s time in Medina, “Some people believed and then apostatized. Then they again took on the outer trappings of faith. But the Messenger of God did not kill them.”[33] 

This is equally clear in the conduct of the early caliphs. When six men from the Bakr bin Wā’il tribe apostatized during a campaign in southern Iran, the leaders of the army had them killed. When the caliph Umar was informed of this, he upbraided the commanders. Had he been making the decision, the caliph explained, he would have offered the men “a way back in from the door they took out,” or he would have put them in prison.[34] When the pious Umayyad caliph ʿUmar bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (d. 720) was told that a group of recent converts to Islam in northern Iraq had apostatized, he allowed them to revert to their previous status as a protected non-Muslim minority.[35] 

Even the worst examples of patience and tolerance in the early Islamic period, the Kharijite extremists, seem to have been at least partially misunderstood by later scholars on the apostasy issue. Their policy of killing any other Muslims whom they saw as having committed grave sins is usually explained by them having concluded that these people were apostates (their supposed reasoning: if sinners really believed in God, would they commit sins?). But according to an early Kharijite source, the Kharijites seem to have done so more because they viewed their opponents as having egregiously defied God’s law than because they were seen as apostates pure and simple.[36] After the Muslim armies conquered the city of Bukhara in 673-4 CE, its inhabitants kept converting to Islam and then returning to their previous faith of Zoroastrianism as soon as the Arab armies left town. The army had to keep returning to reestablish discipline. At no point was anyone killed for this.[37] 

He further adds:

Of course, some people were executed for apostasy in the early Islamic period. Yet, in instances where details are provided, what stands out is their public nature. The apostasy occurs not in private but comes with a very public announcement by the person in question. This is exemplified in the famous story of the caliph Ali (ra) reportedly executing a man named al-Mustawrad al-ʿIjlī for converting to Christianity. Although reports of this event overall are unreliable according to most Muslim scholars, what seems to have condemned al-Mustawrad was not converting but rather rubbing this in Ali’s face publicly.[38] 

And also:

Reconsidering Apostasy in the Modern Period 

The tremendous changes in how the role of religion is viewed in societies strongly influenced by nationalism and Western secularism have led some Muslim scholars to investigate the Shariah heritage on apostasy. The notion that the crime of apostasy in Islam was more a matter of protecting a state and social order than of policing individual beliefs was articulated in the 1940s by the South Asian Muslim activist intellectual Abul Ala Mawdudi (d. 1979). Modern scholars such as the Egyptians Maḥmūd Shaltūt (Shaykh al-Azhar, d. 1964) and Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī, as well as the late Iraqi-American scholar Ṭāhā Jābir al-ʿAlwānī (d. 2016), have reconsidered how apostasy should be viewed in contexts in which religious identity is not a state matter.[42] They have concluded that what was criminal about apostasy was its public dimension and the threat it posed to a public order built on confessional identity. It is this public element, they argue, not the question of a person’s private decision to follow their conscience in changing their religion, that Islamic law should focus on. 

Far from being hidden or unrealized in Islamic legal history, it was precisely this aspect of apostasy-as-public-threat that explained why Muslim jurists and states had so little interest in people’s private religious choices. It also explains why centuries of Muslim jurists all affirmed a ruling that seems to clash so clearly with the Qur’an’s repeated statements on the freedom of religious choice. The Qur’an warns those who abandon Islam after embracing it that their good deeds will mean nothing in this life or the next (Qur’an 2:217). It mentions no worldly punishment. Even “those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief” are not given any earthly punishment by the Qur’an. Instead, God warns only that He “will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way” (Qur’an 4:137). The Qur’anic verse that strikes the most stridently dissonant note with the death penalty for apostasy is the declaration that, “There is no compulsion in religion. Wisdom has been clearly distinguished from falsehood” (Qur’an 2:256).

He appears to conclude that:

In the Shariah, the aim of punishing apostasy from Islam is to protect the communal faith and social order of a Muslim state. If punishing apostasy severely is driving Muslims away from their religion, then this policy is undermining its own purpose. It’s not clear what ‘order under heaven’ maintaining harsh punishments for apostasy would be upholding in our troubled world.
---

In contrast, Mr. Wallace reasons that 'The only reason Islam exists today is because Muslims are threatened to death if they leave their faith'. (111). This seems an extreme viewpoint. I would reason that like with any significant culturally-based religion, Islam exists largely because in certain societies, both where Muslims are a majority and minority, there is a shared Islamic worldview.

Based on the writings of Dr. Brown, I would deduce that he reasons that historically that much of the executions due to apostasy have taken place to protect (in my words) the Islamic religion-state and religion-culture union that has been discussed in website entries within this book review.

So, apostasy would typically lead to death if it is deemed by this religion-state leadership as threatening its own existence and the overall Islamic culture, as opposed to execution typically occurring via apostasy from an individual (s) that was Muslim and then renounced his/her religious faith and philosophy.

page 109

page 110

General canons, but not Bible

Peter Twele: Facebook

Neymar would be the player that is rolling and rolling...

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

Continuing with the review of this text and my learning more symbolic logic.

Philosopher Langer, explains that symbolic logic contains certain principles of logical reasoning. (210). Although her teaching has its complexities, the reader should take comfort that principles of logical reasoning are also contained within the academic disciplines of philosophy, philosophy of religion and theology. If these disciplines are done correctly!

In symbolic logic, the method by which all propositions in a system are produced rests on 'general canons of logic procedure'. (210) These are 'universally known, though seldom explicitly stated'. (210). This lack of the explicit contributes to the complexity and philosophical challenge of symbolic logic.

Principles

Principle of substitution

It is assumed that whenever two terms are identical, and are the names for the same element, either symbol may be used in the place of the other. (210). Langer explains that if a = b then a x c could also be written as b x c (210), as example.

Principle of application

This is the assumption that a statement about to any element applies to each element. (210). Therefore quote:

'(a, b) . a + b = b + a' (210)

If this is true of r and m then r + m = m + r

Principle of inference

It has been recognized in academic literature (in regard to symbolic logic, my add), that if a proposition many be granted (known as true), if another proposition us implied, that second proposition may also be accepted and asserted. (210-211). Langer's explanation below. Since the first propositions means the same as (⊃) the second proposition, both can be logically asserted within symbolic logic.

page 211

Key symbols ≡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 cls = Class int = Interpretation

Briefly John 8 31-36: What kind of free?

East Maple Ridge

John 8:31-36

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

I recently listened to short July 4 sermon from the United States of America, where Pastor Jon Courson, that is a fine exegete, implies (paraphrased) that the concept of 'free' in John 8 means that America has liberty and political freedom because it is significantly Christian.

Let us briefly exegete John 8 in regard to being 'free':

From Strong...

1658 ἐλεύθερος 1659 ἐλευθερόω

Please see iPhone images:

8: 32 which is 1659: To liberate, deliver, make free. (34). So, knowing the truth will liberate someone giving them freedom.

8: 33 which is from 1658: Strong defines 1658 as unrestrained (as a citizen, as an example), not a slave, free within liberty. (34)

8: 36: Knowing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, will make you truly free (1659), and this person shall be free (1658) indeed. The person has liberty and freedom within the truth, and is unrestrained and not a slave.

Bauer documents that ἐλεύθερος is in regard to '1. of political and social freedom' (250), and references John 8: 33 noting that this will be the opposite of slavery with this section (1). This definition is in agreement with Strong.

In regards to ἐλευθερόω: Bauer documents that 8: 32 is in regard to moral matters. (251). Again a consistency with the work of Strong.

Courson in his commentary, explains that (paraphrased) the Pharisees were blind as they could not admit that they lacked political freedom under the occupation of the Roman Empire in 8: 33. (509).

But the core problem was still Pharisees rejection of Jesus Christ (the gospel message, his deity and work, my add). (509). Ellis takes the view that the Jews were not denying historical facts, but were stating that in each historical situation they had aspects of freedom. (1247). Importantly, it was the Pharisees that brought the concept of political freedom into the discussion with Jesus Christ.

Jesus does acknowledge, seemingly this political freedom, although secondarily in importance in verse 36.
---

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

The primary context is spiritual in John 8. We can reason this as sin is primary thing documented against freedom (34-36), and in the gospel context the atoning and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ in conjunction with the Trinity is the remedy to sin.

Pastor Courson is correct, I would reason as secondary context that this includes political freedom and liberty. Again, supported by Greek scholars Strong and Bauer.

Theologically, although I agree with the Lord Jesus Christ that spiritual freedom should lead to political freedom, clearly it is not the case with every 'free' in Christ, Christian believer. For example, there are Christians in orthodox and radical Islamic countries that have state and society limited freedoms. However, in the culminated Kingdom of God, spiritual freedom will lead to political freedom as the government and its citizens under God the Son and the Triune God, will live this out.

Pastor Courson made the classic claim (paraphrased) on his July 4, 2018 sermon that the United States of America is the freest nation on earth because it is Christian. Acknowledging his correctness from John 8 in a secondary context, there would still be a very significant intellectual, philosophical and political debate on which Western nation actually is the most free! There is no obvious answer in my view.

The massive size of the United States government, civilian and military and its power to oversee all citizens is at least one philosophical premise that can provide substantial doubt on Pastor Courson's claim, at least in some contexts.

A premise is support of his view is the large size of the Christian Church and Christian publishing, in the United States of America.

page 498

page 34

page 42

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

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

ELLIS, DAVID J. (1986) 'John' 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, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

Incontinence (philosophy, akrasia and Romans 1)

Today

Blackburn explains the philosophical concept of incontinence which is known as, from the Greek as akrasia, is described as the weakness of the will where a person knows what to do, but does something else. (10).

Although I reason that a person, that is not under significant force or coercion from another cause, to do otherwise, will, via human nature, follow his/her greatest desire via the use of the human will; I can also acknowledge that a person can have a significant, reasonable understanding of what is ethically (external) and moral (internal) right and yet do otherwise. This is as philosophy in basic agreement with the theology of Romans 1:

New American Standard Bible

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.

I can acknowledge that philosophical incontinence (akrasia) is a reasonable and true concept.

Last week

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

I was ripped-off unintentionally?/Ethical objectivism

I thought I was buying this 'looks like' Near Mint book from the Excited States of Americana, for a Very Fine price, but that hole cuts it down to a near worthless, for a collector, Good or Fair. I have asked the Amazon seller for a replacement. Time will tell. My deduction, in faith, is I was ripped-off unintentionally. I also paid $12 for duty to import this book into the Socialist Paradise of Canada. On the bright side I received four good quality books from Rip-off Britain today as well. A fine eBay seller, mate. I was not ripped-off in that case.

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

Ethical objectivism

British philosopher, Blackburn explains this view claims ethics are objectively true. (126). These claims are not relative or subject to any human culture. (126). These are not purely subjective in nature. (126).

I agree with Blackburn that objective ethics can be true and that they are not purely subjective, but I reason there is subjective aspects in interpretation. Biblical ethics, developing within progressive revelation in textual context, I reason are objectively true, not subject to the stamp of approval of humanity or human culture. They are also interpreted subjectively to some extent.

Further, connecting my two topics. I reason ethically and objectivity I have been sold a less than good book for what I purchased it as. Again, in faith I will state, unintentionally. I also review each page when I order texts from eBay and Amazon.

Acts 5: The Trinity

Port Moody

I recently listened to Pastor Jon Courson's sermon on this same section of Scripture and thought I would consult his commentary series.

In regard to Acts 5: 1-11, this story from the New Testament describes how a married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, were according to Pastor Courson, apparently wanting to fit in the Christian community and seem spiritual. The couple therefore sold their property, portraying the idea that all the proceeds would go to the communal Christian Church, as others were doing in the Christian Church at that time. But the couple actually kept a chunk of the money from the sale for themselves. (654).

First Ananias was caught in this lie by the Apostle Peter and dropped dead as a result. Then about three hours later his wife, Sapphira, as well dropped dead after being confronted by the Apostle with the same lie.

Pastor Courson's teaching, both with the online sermon and in his commentary series was that 'Hypocrisy kills'. (654). The Pastor reasons the couple had the sin of hypocrisy. (654). They claimed to have given all to the Lord (the proceeds from the sale of property), but were dishonest. The couple were wearing a mask (655) and were not as spiritually generous in reality as they wanted to appear in public within the Christian Church.

Courson makes a reasonable case.

My focus from this section of Scripture is (New American Standard Bible):

3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not [b]under your control? Why is it that you have [c]conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

This was a text the late Walter Martin used as a Trinitarian section of the New Testament that may be overlooked in that context by many readers. Clearly in a plain literal context, the couple lied to the Holy Spirit which is equated to lying to God.

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

Not the World Cup. Someone has been playing British computer football games since 1997...

2 Peter 3 : The latest

2 Peter 3 September 2016

Second Peter 3: 9 September 2012

With Blogger/Google and my websites I can write on a subject more than once, but I cannot cause the latest related entry to be read the most.

It would be nice to think that the September 2012 entry receives more pageviews (apparently) because of my 'lovely' brief webcam appearances, but I will not assume so.

I would like to clarify my current leanings on the subject. I am learning as I research and write. I am less than dogmatic in regards to interpretation with 2 Peter 3, in a similar way to Hebrews 6 and related passages from James. I hope this suffices in the humility department.

---

Second Peter 3:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

William Barclay takes the perspective that when the text is stating that God does not want any to perish, like Paul in Romans in certain verses (Barclay lists 11: 32) it is in the context of God shutting persons out to unbelief. Barclay (1976: 343).

Admittedly such an interpretation could read as in agreement with John 3: 16 from the Apostle John.

John 3:16 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Footnotes: John 3:16 Or unique, only one of His kind

I stated in the September 30, 2012 article as 'You' is being addressed in (3), as in Christians: 'In context therefore, it is possible that Second Peter Chapter 3:9 is not directed to non-believers in regard to salvation but is directed to Christians in regard to repentance. It may be stating basically that the Lord is patient with you (Christians), not wishing for any of you to (perish/die) in a state of non-repentance.'

However: If this is indeed relating to the unregenerate, although written to Christians, Erickson is helpful.

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.

If it is God’s eternal permissible will to save only some, this does have biblical support.

There is the election of those predestined in Jesus Christ from Ephesians 1 and Romans 8.

God regenerates in Titus 3, persons in Jesus Christ being regenerated, also known as being born again (John 3). This is embraced secondarily by those in Jesus Christ as God is the primary cause. Human beings do not contribute to salvation but can embrace it.

From the book of Revelation only some within humanity are listed in the book of life, and a human being does not write his/her name in the book. Indeed it could be reasoned that at least in a permissible sense, God wills the predestination to salvation of only the elect.

Repentance and belief to/for human salvation for all of humanity may be a divine wish. It may or not be God's perfect will to save all. But I can admit in this entry, it could be God's perfect will in the sense that God wishes salvation for all (universalism) within his will. I am not dogmatic on this point.

But it definitely, biblically and theologically will not occur (Revelation 20-22). God's permissible will is what actually occurs and that is applied limited atonement and salvation for the elect in Christ, alone.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

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.

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.