Antiquitam, argumentum ad

Switzerland: Google+

Antiquitam, argumentum ad

Preface

This article is part of a website review of entries within the Pirie text.

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

Antiquitam, argumentum ad

It is the fallacy of assuming something is good or right simply because it is old. (42).

A possible objection to Christian orthodoxy and Biblical orthodoxy arises; that is the assumption that this type of fallacious reasoning is used in preserving these doctrines over progressive alternatives.

I will not write (speak) for others but antiquity is not primary in my reasoning in holding to Biblical, Christian doctrines.

Those doctrines are primarily held to because Scripture is supported by thousands of manuscript copies in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Certain scribes and writers within these religious communities were inspired by God to write supernaturally revealed, consistent, reasonable, theological messages from Genesis to Revelation, from creation and the fall to the atonement and resurrection work of Christ to the last things. The Scripture is reasonable and sound religious history that leads to sound theology and is paralleled by sound, theistic, philosophy of religion in support.

The antiquity and support of history and the Church Father, in itself is not sufficient reason by itself alone, for Christian faith and philosophy. It can lend support, but when reasonable through argument.

Yes, every worldview has its difficulties. Theodicy and the problem of evil, which I dealt with for twelve years academically (I believe successfully, although I do not have infinite knowledge) being a primarily Christian worldview example, but I also examined other worldviews and find the Christian worldview least problematic.

Back to Pirie:

He comments that there is 'nothing in the age of belief or an assertion which alone makes it right.' (42).

I would agree, because the soundness of arguments, the quality of premises and conclusions is far more important than antiquity. In this realm we have several old religions, of say more that one hundred years old, that contradict each other on several major points.

Contrary to what many state, these religions cannot all be essentially true in regard to the nature of God and salvation due to contradictions. For example, Biblical Christianity claiming the exclusivity of Christ for salvation in relation to the Father (John 8, 10, 14, 1 John). The deity of Christ, as God the Son within the Trinity, and his atonement and resurrection work for salvation alone by grace through faith, notably contrasting Christianity with Islam, for example, which denies these.

Pirie states that this fallacy economizes thought and eliminates difficult decision making. (42).

He writes that to hold to the old way of doing things does not make it right and does not make it wrong, even if this reasoning has taken place for thousands of years. (43).

It is fallacious to place too much emphasis on antiquity in deciding whether or not the old way is right or if it is wrong.

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

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

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com. 

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. 

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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

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

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

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

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

Brief On Matthew 7: 21-23: Theology Always Matters

Vancouver

Brief On Matthew 7: 21-23: Theology Always Matters

Preface

Matthew 7:21-23: Introduction

Ellison writes that preaching and even miracles are not necessarily indication of seeking and serving the true God. Ellison (1986: 1129). Works performed need to be considered in light of the character of those that perform them. (1129).

France explains that superficial discipleship is ultimately rejected by God and Christ. France (1985: 148). It is not indicated as necessarily insincere discipleship, but it does not meet the divine standards. (148).

Good works do not qualify a disciple that does not meet God and Christ's criteria for entrance into the Kingdom of God. The New Testament teaches that those in Jesus Christ are saved, justified, sanctified through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, being applied to them through regeneration (John 3, in particular Titus 3, 1 Peter 1).

Regeneration

3824. paliggenesia: Bible Hub παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Cited

'Strong's Concordance 

paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal 

Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: paliggenesia

Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)

Definition: regeneration, renewal 

Usage: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.'

'Titus 3:5 

N-GFS GRK: διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως 

NAS: by the washing of regeneration and renewing 

KJV: the washing of regeneration, and INT: through [the] washing of regeneration and renewing'

Matthew 7: 21-23: Lord, Lord

English Standard Version (ESV)

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ 

New American Standard Version (NASB)

21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22 Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

This passage from Matthew 7 was preached on by the pastor at church in 2015:

He opined that the persons under judgement knew God, but God did not know them. They had accepted Christ, but God and Christ did not have Lordship over them. Those under judgement were relying on works righteousness as opposed to trusting in God and Christ as Lord and Saviour. The pastor then stated that the theology of the persons under judgement was not a key issue as in they had proper theology because they knew of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ.

However, I reason that theology is always in a sense a key issue. Theology always matters.

The judged persons had a knowledge of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ; enough that they could in this supernatural realm of judgement described, recognize Jesus Christ as Lord, which is technically correct. They called him Lord, but Jesus Christ denied he was their Lord.

These false disciples appeal to works righteousness.

The pastor correctly pointed out that in the judging presence of God any kind of works righteousness approach by humanity to God is error. But, I would add that is it also clearly theologically in error.

Romans 1-9, describes the universal sinfulness of humankind, by nature and choice and that only the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for sin, applied to believers as justification (righteousness) will save any one for the Kingdom of God.

Galatians (2) states that man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ.

In other words, faith in his atoning and resurrection work applied to persons in Christ.

Ephesians 1-2

New American Standard Bible

Ephesians 1 explains that those in Christ are chosen by God; therefore God knows who he has chosen.

4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [d]Him. In love

5 [e]He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the [f]kind intention of His will,

6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 2: 1-10

Ephesians 2 explains that those in Christ are saved by grace through faith unto good works, and not by works or works righteousness.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [ag]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

December 6, 2015: Prior to attending 007 film with several video outages
and the end of the film being without audio (wind storm).
Good public relations from Cineplex Odeon  providing two free movie tickets.

----

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

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.

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

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

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company. 

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

More On Accident Fallacy

Scotland From The Roadside: Edinburgh Castle

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

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

I have been pondering on, as in examples, Accident Fallacy.

This is definitely challenging philosophical material with plenty of revision, but when thought out, it once again demonstrates how philosophy (philosophy of religion, theology) has practical aspects.

I recently wrote 'Accident Fallacy' on this site and have further thoughts.

'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (7).

From the qualified statement (limited statement my add) to the unqualified (unlimited statement, my add). (7).

The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).

Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).

'If it is always permissible to kill in war (qualified and limited statement), then it is always permissible to kill' (unqualified and unlimited statement). (7).

However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.

A controversial example and topic (not a primary agenda for this post, it was just the best one that came to mind) I have blogged on would be for Accident Fallacy:

If some women prefer large age gaps in marriage (qualified and limited statement), then it is always permissible for there to be large age gaps in marriage (unqualified and unlimited statement).

A major needed qualification is for example:

Most women do not prefer large age gaps in marriage.

This would alter a conclusion to qualified and limited.

Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is

'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).

From the unqualified statement to the statement qualified. (7).

Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7).

Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).

He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless (unqualified and unlimited statement) then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (qualified and limited statement) (7).

I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.

Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33).

Almost every generalization could be rejected because of a possible accidental case it does not cover. 

But to always maintain this is the fallacy of accident. (33).

The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33). General rules with a few exceptions.

However..

Women do not prefer large age gaps in marriage (unqualified and unlimited statement), therefore some women should not prefer large age gaps in marriage (qualified and limited statement).

Is also accident fallacy (alleged as Blackburn notes).

The exception should not be the general rule.

The rule should not rule out the exception.

Accident Continued

Reality Pod: Reminds me of Pink Panther films.

Business Insider & The Bible

The video presents a somewhat negative view of Scripture from Business Insider.

However, I was aware of these and other Bible difficulties within my first seven years of Canadian Christian academia and from my own research.

This was before I worked on secular research theses only degrees in England and Wales, for twelve years. Ending with a Doctorate.

Business Insider admits there are related scholarly debates.

In other words, this is not really new news.

More so this type of information works against a fundamentalist dictation theory of Scripture and that God maintains Scripture within a dictation theory model.

But one could observe I did not hold to dictation theory, years ago on my sites.

However, the type of information does not work against a view of the Scripture, the original autographs, as inspired by God and God the Holy Spirit through writers associated with Christ, that were Apostles and Disciples and associated scribes, written without theological error and with inerrancy.

God did not place a supernatural force field of protection around the original Biblical autographs.

God did not place a supernatural force field of protection around copies of the Scripture to maintain accuracy.

Rather the Scripture has been maintained through ancient and modern scholarship with the use of thousands of manuscripts in whole and part, critical thinking and reasoning with God's guidance.

God's has a sovereign and providential role in this theologically.

And God is the first cause in all things, philosophically. He wills and sanctions all things.

I could add to the type of points made in the video that there are various versions of texts in the New Testament Greek and various English Bible versions (for example), but with minor differences. However central, orthodox theology and the Gospel remains consistent in message.

Facebook

Satire And Theology October 31, 2006

Cited and edited from my second blog

The divine inspiration of Scripture was noted as important.

The New Testament is not full of mythological stories of clearly fictional characters, but actual people that existed. The same group of people discussed within the New Testament, is also the group that produced the Scripture. Therefore, the New Testament is historically grounded on eyewitness testimony, and associates of eyewitnesses.

Since every manuscript contains scribal errors, we can conclude the copies are not equal to the original inspired letters. This does not mean that we have to abandon the Biblical idea of inspired Scripture. I firmly hold to the concept of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God for teaching, and training. I think we can deduce that scribal errors do not equate with theological errors, and therefore scribal errors do not eradicate or change the New Testament’s essential doctrines.

There are enough New Testament documents extant that scholars would know if certain schools of manuscripts contained serious differences in theology from other schools. This is why as Christians we do not need to take seriously the claims of critics that state that lost or hidden New Testament era documents from the group of eyewitnesses contradict the ones found in the New Testament.

The manuscript evidence supports the fact that there are scribal errors in the documents, but does not support the idea of major theological differences between different groups of manuscripts.

My theory of inspiration would include the idea that God inspired the original New Testament documents written by those within the group of Christ and the Apostles.

Since the documents would eventually physically disintegrate, God would have to use supernatural means to maintain the original documents. The idea of God using some kind of supernatural force field to maintain the documents as good as new does not seem in line with how God works in our world over a long period, and so it is not surprising that God allowed the originals to be destroyed or lost, and instead maintained his Scripture through copying.

The copying mistakes did not affect any major doctrine, but we do have related issues like with the ending of Mark. 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).

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.

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. This view held to by my Mark Biblical Studies professor, at Seminary, for example.

My essential Christian theology is not changed whether or not Mark ends at 16: 8 or 16: 9-20. If Mark died and the book ended at 16: 8, I do not see any need to place demands upon the Markan 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.

Inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs can be reasonably held to theologically; as can the view God has accurately maintained his Scripture.

But admittedly, this a moderate conservative position and not a fundamentalist one, but may evidence lead and not pre-set assumptions.

Marlowe, Michael D. (2006) ‘Mark 16: 9-20’, Bible-Researcher.com, Ohio. http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Miller, Dave (2005) ‘Is Mark 16: 9-20 Inspired?’, Apologetics Press.org, Montgomery, Alabama. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780