Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
(Cannot have true premises and false conclusion (TF) for validity, my add) Invalid: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by assuming that all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. If this is possible, the argument is invalid. Validity and invalidity apply only to arguments, not statements. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call a statement valid or invalid. True and false apply only to statements, not arguments. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call an argument true or false. All deductive arguments aspire to validity.
Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises.
Unsound: an argument that is not sound.
Valid: Argument (s)
True: Premises and conclusion (s)
Notice, I will at times state that something is reasonable. This connects to the idea of validity, not necessarily truth or soundness. Although it may be so, in my view.
Absolute necessity might be defined as truth at absolutely all possible worlds without restriction. But we should be able to explain it without invoking possible worlds.
By my definition 1,2 are necessary in all possible worlds.
The standard account defines each kind of relative necessity by means of a necessitated or strict conditional, whose antecedent is a propositional constant for the body of assumptions relative to which the consequent is asserted to be necessary.
The relative necessity of (3) has as antecedent the absolute necessity of (1,2).
Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.
In contrast, some may view God’s plans as contingent as opposed to necessary.
If God’s plans for humanity are contingent, because he could have done otherwise, the fact these contingent plans come from a necessary being would still have them supersede the plans and needs of the contingent.
---
Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.
December 8, 2018
The necessary, what exists by necessity, to parallel this philosophical concept with that which is biblical, has plans that exist within the contingency of finite creation, in the context of the material universe and as well with the existence of finite angelic and demonic beings.
Biblically and based on theological and philosophical reason:
God, as what is necessary can complete divine plans with options, however, as they take place within a contingent reality...
I see two options:
1. Perfect will
Direct cause
2. Permissible will
Indirect cause
Allowing
---
2 Peter 2: 3
8
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 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.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
As I read in Erickson, that is a Calvinist theologian, taking his idea (paraphrased) as a reasonable theological possibility (361).
God's perfect will is that all are saved. (2 Peter 3).
God's permissible will is only those chosen are saved. (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9).
There is also a reasonable objection that it is theologically possible that it is God's perfect will that occurs, at least in regard to human salvation and the citizenship of those within the culminated Kingdom of God. In that case, 2 Peter 3, is not discussing salvation but the repentance of those in Jesus Christ. The 'you' being those already covered by the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Those in the Christian Church reading the scripture.
As my mentor at Columbia Bible taught me, sometimes we live with theological tension. Add biblical and philosophical tension, in this case.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.
Brief review and comments:
Do Christians Believe In 3 Gods? (1992-2002), Mart De Haan & Herb Vander Lugt, RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
On page 1, this booklet states that (paraphrased) Islam, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints all in error, reject the biblically based doctrine of the Trinity. (1).
Do Christians believe in three Gods? (21).
The text explains that the Bible (New Testament, definitively) teaches that there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28, my add). (21). Each has a distinct personality. (21).
However, God is one being. (21). It defines...
God the Father: Originator
God the Son: Agent
God the Holy Spirit: Administrator of Applicator (21).
These seem reasonable definitions, but needless to state there would be much theological debate in regards to these non-exhaustive, limited definitions. None of the distinctions are independent of the others. (21).
This little booklet is biblical and certainly a reasonable free resource to own! It has a lot of free content.
My take on the Trinity from previous website work:
Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ)
'New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority;
Footnotes: Colossians 2:10
Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of '
N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB).
'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).
God the Son, is not a second deity, God the Holy Spirit is not a third deity.
Based on this section of Scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected.
Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God in spirit, and became God incarnate, finite man.
Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death.
As I noted in a previous article from Hebrews 1: Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original 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. (page 847).
Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).
Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God.
Matthew 28:19-20
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”
Footnotes:
Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part.
Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days
Acts 5: 2-6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4).
All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions.
As God is eternally relational, humanity in specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1-26-27). God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.
This text review continues...
Theology of salvation is compared:
1. Protestant
This presentation, in my view, is accurate in regards to a mainly Protestant/Evangelical theology which, based on my educational background and teaching on this website, heavily emphasizes libertarian free will.
(Incompatibilism, see archives, but it is non-determinism, in a sense)
In other words, if you believe in the gospel, you are saved, if you do not, you are damned.
However, the speaker, Steve Robinson documents on You Tube... A comparison of the mainstream juridical-substitutionary atonement views and an Orthodox view of salvation illustrated with chairs.
It a limited Protestant perspective, in my view.
I view a Protestant/Reformed perspective as a significantly more theological astute and accurate than a merely a Protestant/Evangelical one.
By the planning, creation and initiation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...
The atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is applied to those regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3) (One must be born again John 3), that with limited free will (my PhD take on compatibilism and soft determinism, see archives), embrace the work of Christ and the regeneration, simultaneous to God's salvific work.
This includes legal justification and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to those chosen in Jesus Christ (Romans).
This includes sanctification.
Those in Christ are chosen (Ephesians 1, Romans 8-9), regenerated and are saved by grace through faith, not by works, but for works.
Works in Jesus Christ are however a sign of salvation (James).
Romans 4 for a New Testament view in regard to Abraham from the Hebrew Bible.
Romans 4:4-5, 20-22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness
20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness. John Calvin: Romans 4: 5
Cited
He indeed clearly shews that faith brings us righteousness, not because it is a meritorious act, but because it obtains for us the favor of God.
2. Orthodox
In this video presentation, the love of God was heavily emphasized. I would appreciate a more thorough soteriology (salvation theology). But I understand it was a non-exhaustive presentation, as is my website article.
---
The Orthodox Study Bible defines Salvation
Page 807
However, here, is where Orthodoxy differs from Protestantism. As I noted in previous work, the Protestant view is that those in Christ do not cooperate in human salvation. My Reformed theology is that we embrace our salvation in Jesus Christ.
The second video below demonstrates that Pastor John F. MacArthur views Orthodoxy as false.
(MacArthur will view the Roman Catholic Church as false for similar reasons)
(Paraphrased) This would be based on this view described in the Orthodoxy text. He would understand Orthodoxy as holding to works righteousness and not justification by grace through faith alone. In other words, he reasons Orthodoxy assumes that the atoning and resurrection work in Christ is not sufficient for salvation.
Recent convert to Orthodoxy from Evangelical Christianity, Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute, reasons (paraphrased) that MacArthur is interpreting Orthodoxy incorrectly and that the idea of cooperation with God in salvation connects to works in salvation concepts from the Book of James and not works righteousness for salvation.
I am learning about Orthodoxy, and so approach this topic cautiously and humbly, but will state that where and if MacArthur is correct, within Orthodoxy, that works righteousness will not save anyone.
As a Protestant within the Reformed tradition, again for clarity, I reason that God alone plans, creates, initiates salvation.
Based on my philosophical, Reformed theology...
Cause is a confusing philosophical term, and is used in different senses:
The chosen in Jesus Christ, as a secondary cause with limited free will, merely embrace salvation which is entirely of the triune God. Crucially, cause here is not defined as planning, creating or initiating salvation. Salvation is not forced or coerced by God, but humanly embraced.
To clarify:
Primary cause: God, as Father, Son, Holy Spirit, plans, creates, initiates the atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, Jesus Christ and regeneration.
A secondary cause as opposed to hard determinism and force and coercion, as human beings do not merely simply become Christians, but with limited free will, embrace salvation. As the soteriology is entirely divine, there is no human works righteousness that adds to or contributes to salvation.
If by works righteousness, concepts within James and Romans 4 (4: 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness) are meant, as in showing salvific faith by works and obedience, I can accept that as embracing salvation, but I would not use the term 'cooperation'.
Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 38: Romans, tr. by John King, [1847-50], at sacred-texts.com
